Re: New back end ia16: 16-bit Intel x86

[kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)]

> I did not make it up. Try asking Google for "Intel IA16" or "Intel
> IA-16". At least one search result is 7 (seven) years old. It is also clear
> from the search results that outside of Intel, IA16 or IA-16 means the
> 16-bit x86 family members i8086-i80286 and IA32 or IA-32 means x86 family
> members starting with the i80386.

I just did that search and I must say that I'm not that convinced.  The few
references that I find are like this Anonymous post that says "It just
might be 15 years before ia64 bit software is in wide use, much like the
transition between ia16 and ia32 of the past.." 

I'm seeing perhaps a dozen original uses of ia16, but I'm not sure that's
enough to classify it as an accepted usage.

Although even such usage might be enough to prevent somebody from naming
an "ia16" architecture, it also might not, so that's a risk.

But my main problem with it is that it's not a different architecture.
IA32 and IA64 are different.  But what you're calling "ia16" is really what
we'd call "x86_16" analogously to "x86_64".  I think this really should be
a modification to the i386 port, as others have suggested.

If it has to be a separate port, my vote would be "x86_16".