It is historical revisionism. AArch32 was introduced with ARMv8, before there was no need to distinguish between 32-bit and 64-bit execution states. If people are selecting, say, JNI libraries, based on os.arch, then there is every reason to be consistent.
On 4 April 2017 at 17:39, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 04/04/17 17:35, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: >> This does raise another question, though: Should we use "aarch32" >> instead of "arm32" for the 32-bit ARM architecture? > > Probably not. I believe that "aarch32" is historical revisionism > coming from ARM: it didn't exist as a name before AArch64 came out. > AFAICR... > > Andrew.
