From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joseph V Moss <jmoss@ichips.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:05:12 +0000
Subject: Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: PROPOSED: 32/64 bit coexistance
Message-Id: <marc-linux-ia64-105590698805221@msgid-missing>
List-Id: <linux-ia64.vger.kernel.org>
References: <marc-linux-ia64-105590698805199@msgid-missing>
In-Reply-To: <marc-linux-ia64-105590698805199@msgid-missing>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org

> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:57:15 +0200, Christoph Hellwig <hch@ns.caldera.de> said:
> 
>   Christoph> It does.  On Linux-ABI I use e.g. /emul/osr5, /emul/uw7
>   Christoph> and /emul/svr4.  Id suggest using /emul/<opsys> for
>   Christoph> emulations of another operating system for the same
>   Christoph> architecture, /emul/<arch>-<opsys> for non-native.
> 
>   Christoph> Windows should go into /emul/win64 and /emul/ia32-win32.
> 
> Sounds reasonable.  /emul/ia32-linux should be it, then.

I'm not so sure.  Should the architecture name be 'ia32'?  The linux kernel
and other things have normally referred to it as 'i386' (or any of i[3456]86 in
some cases).

Personally, I'd prefer the 'ia32' name, if for no other reason than to avoid
the problems associated with my parenthetical remark in the last paragraph.