|
From: | Maxime Devos |
Subject: | [bug#57643] [PATCH 0/3] Document the image API. |
Date: | Sat, 24 Sep 2022 18:58:42 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.12.0 |
On 24-09-2022 18:33, Ludovic Courtès wrote> Hi,
Maxime Devos<maximedevos@telenet.be> skribis:Proposal: rename the variable to x86-32-linux. Likewise for the hurd.While we’re discussing the color of the bikeshed :-), I’d like to point out that “x86_32” or “x86-32” is not a thing.
It is a thing if we let it be a thing. It also already is a thing: target-x86-32? exists, "x86-32" finds some relevant search results (though it can be confused with another meaning of "x86-32" -- an ABI where pointers are 32-bit but all of the x86-64 instruction set remains available, so far from an ideal naming.)
The official name is either IA32 or, more specifically, i686, etc.
In my experience, IA-32 is not a thing except in Intel documents and various irregular exceptions, however official it might be ... which seems similar to x86-32.
I’m in favor of sticking to official (nick)names consistently.
Going by https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/intel-sdm.html , the official name is IA-32, not IA32.
IA-32 sounds nice to me though, we could make that a thing in Guix, though for consistency 'target-x86-32?' would need to be renamed to 'target-ia32?' (I don't think the original casing and hyphenation is important for procedure names).
I don't see the point of going for i686 -- AFAIK, Guix might as well have chosen i586 as a minimal supported version, and if it weren't for 32-bit seemingly being phased out, there might be a i786 eventually and Guix might eventually require i786 -- the mention of a particular microarchitecture doesn't seem relevant to me.
Greetings, MAxime.
OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |