Greg Wooledge [2022-07-17 08:25:24] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 08:35:33AM +0000, Marco wrote:
But why the packages are still named i386 instead of i686?
Because changing the name of the architecture would be such a massive
pain in the ass, and would probably break *so* many things, that it's
simply not worthwhile.
The 80386 processor was the processor that introduced that new
instruction set, quite different from its predecessors (like 80286), so
much so that it needed a different mode, just like the amd64 is
different enough that it requires a different mode.
Subsequent processors introduced various extensions (addition of CMOVE,
MMX, SSE, ...) which are incremental changes which don't break
compatibility with previously existing code, so I think it makes a lot
of sense to still call it the "i386 instruction set".
Also, as seen here, there is no such thing as "the i686". For some
people (like me), this is a "name" that was given to the Pentium Pro
(because after 286, 386, 486, when Intel decided to switch gear and
call the next one "Pentium" people couldn't resist thinking about it as
"586" and hence "686" for the next one), but after that the "number
name" faded into history (the "786" name was never really used to refer
to one of the subsequent CPUs).
According to
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2016/05/msg00001.html it
seems that Debian uses "i686" to refer to the ISA supported by the
Pentium Pro.