On Tue, 4 Feb 2020, 23:25 Edward Diener, <eldlistmailingz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/4/2020 12:41 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 11:07, Edward Diener
> > <eldlistmailingz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Given the code:
> >>
> >> class cbase;
> >> int main()
> >> {
> >> typedef int __attribute__ ((__stdcall__)) (cbase::* atype)();
> >> typedef int __attribute__ ((__cdecl__)) (cbase::* btype)();
> >> typedef int __attribute__ ((__fastcall__)) (cbase::* ctype)();
> >> typedef int __attribute__ ((__thiscall__)) (cbase::* dtype)();
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> If I compile this for x64 (-m64) in gcc-9.2 I receive no errors or
> >
> > Aside: Please don't misuse the term "x32" (which means something
> > different here), and avoid the dumb "x64" term (which is a
> > Windows-ism).
> >
>
> Do you prefer I should rather say x86-32
Any of x86, ia32, or x86-32 is clear and unambiguous.
x32 is a completely different thing. It's an alternative ABI for
x86_64, using the x86_64 instruction set.
x86 has been well understood for many, many years. Why people feel the
need to call it x32 is beyond me.
> and x86-64
Yes, or x86_64. Some people still use amd64 which is well understood,
although Intel don't like it :-)
"x64" is just silly.
