On 01/20/2015 12:02 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
>>> Ping?  Any thoughts?
>>
>> x86 for the family and x86-32/x86-64 for the 2 architectures?
>>
>
> Works for me.

[redirecting from gcc@ to gcc-patches@]

OK, here is a patch that attempts to implement that convention.  I'd 
appreciate review from a target maintainer to check that I've correctly 
disambiguated places where "i386" was referring to both 32- and 64-bit 
variants vs 32-bit only.  I've left alone some instances of "i386" where 
it seemed appropriate to name a specific processor -- e.g. there are a 
bunch of examples in the inline asm section that are described as "i386 
code".

If this is OK to commit, I will follow it up with another patch to 
re-alphabetize the renamed sections ("i386 whatever" to "x86 whatever"). 
  Trying to do both the renaming and the shuffling in a single patch 
would have made it impossible to review the actual changes to content. 
When I was working on this I also realized that some of the x86-specific 
material in extend.texi really needs copy-editing; again, best to do 
that in a separate patch.

-Sandra

2015-01-26  Sandra Loosemore  <sandra@codesourcery.com>

	gcc/
	* doc/extend.texi: Use "x86", "x86-32", and "x86-64" as the
	preferred names of the architecture and its 32- and 64-bit
	variants.
	* doc/invoke.texi: Likewise.
	* doc/md.texi: Likewise.