[bug#57643] [PATCH 0/3] Document the image API.

[Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1713 bytes --]


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.

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 929 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]