On 24-09-2022 18:33, Ludovic Courtès wrote> Hi, > > Maxime Devos 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.