Re: PATCH: Standardize on i[3-9]86 in Binutils

[Bernd Jendrissek <berndj at prism dot co dot za>]

On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:58:20AM +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
> > Currently, only freebsd ports accepts i786 as a machine type
> > in binutils.  This allows any OS to use the i786 as a
> > machine type.  Various places in the tree were already using
> > i[3-9]86 so I used that nomenclature throughout binutils.
> 
> Well really it is only place - libtool.m4 - in a FreeBSD/OpenBSD
> specific check.
> 
> I am not at all convinced that it is OK to accept identification
> strings for processors that do not exist yet (and may never exist).
> Changing the configuration to support "i[3-7]86" would be OK, but I am
> not happy with "i[3-9]86".  If it is important to you that the tools
> support "i[3-9]86" then please explain why, otherwise if you could
> submit a revised patch using "i[3-7]86" then I would be much obliged.

Well for one, I guess the Pentium 4 could be construed as i886; i786
would already be the Pentium 3.

In fact, if you take a look at
http://itlab.itnow.com.cn/articles/20030217/20032179392415754-1.shtml,
you might think that some people think Pentium 5's are a real possibility.
(Can anybody translate that page for me?)

So what's this "tejas" thing?  Some links may be in order...

http://www.geek.com/procspec/intel/tejas.htm
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,900185,00.asp

So there's your i996 with almost as many contacts.

Anyway, what would/will the Pentium 6 be?  i1086?  Or maybe ia86?

-- 
bernd.jendrissek@mailbox.co.za is probably better to bookmark than any
employer-specific email address I may have appearing in the headers.