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.
