Re: RFC: Add 32bit x86-64 support to binutils

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>]

On 30 December 2010 18:23, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> This patch adds 32bit x86-64 support to binutils. Support in compiler,
> library and OS is required to use it.  It can be used to implement the
> new 32bit OS for x86-64.  Any comments?

I have a small comment on the changes to the c-i386.texi docs:

diff --git a/gas/doc/c-i386.texi b/gas/doc/c-i386.texi
index 1c6175b..c3956a8 100644
--- a/gas/doc/c-i386.texi
+++ b/gas/doc/c-i386.texi
@@ -56,11 +56,14 @@ dependent options:
 @table @gcctabopt
 @cindex @samp{--32} option, i386
 @cindex @samp{--32} option, x86-64
+@cindex @samp{--n32} option, i386
+@cindex @samp{--n32} option, x86-64
 @cindex @samp{--64} option, i386
 @cindex @samp{--64} option, x86-64
-@item --32 | --64
+@item --32 | --n32 | --64
 Select the word size, either 32 bits or 64 bits. Selecting 32-bit
 implies Intel i386 architecture, while 64-bit implies AMD x86-64
+architecture.  @samp{--n32} selects 32bit word size with AMD x86-64
 architecture.

Simply adding the new sentence at the end is not very clear, because
the last sentence contradicts the second sentence:  --n32 selects
32-bit word size, but does not imply Intel i386 architecture.

Also, "32bit" and "32-bit" should be used consistently.

How about:

 Select the word size, either 32 bits or 64 bits. @samp{--32}
 implies Intel i386 architecture, while @samp{--n32} and @samp{--64}
 imply AMD x86-64 architecture with 32-bit or 64-bit word-size
 respectively.