Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail
From: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.programming
Subject: Re: 64 bit code
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:17:18 -0700
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <87obkajd4h.fsf@blp.benpfaff.org>
References: <e5cd117b-219b-49a3-9054-3553ca359f21@googlegroups.com> <507595db$0$6898$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <k5488o$cbv$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: blp@cs.stanford.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: usenet.stanford.edu 1349900239 15032 127.0.0.1 (10 Oct 2012 20:17:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: action@cs.stanford.edu
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jq6RdEUQQjR9AsjlS8xI7Vvswlc=
Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:2313

"BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> And the downside of 64-bit processors is *having* to use 64-bits for
> things for which 32-bits was perfectly adequate.
>
> They can address over 4GB in one virtual address space, sure, but how
> many programs actually need to do that?

This is why Linux on x86 now has the "x32" ABI that runs in
64-bit mode but only uses 32 bits of address space.