Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #2308

Re: 64 bit code

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:37:27 +0100, "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Jongware" <jongware@no-spam.plz> wrote in message 
>news:507595db$0$6898$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
>> On 10-Oct-12 17:22 PM, bob wrote:
>>> Was the move to 64 bit code primarily to break the 4 gig memory barrier?
>>>
>>> Or were there other equally compelling incentives?
>>
>> Memory is typically served by a separate bus. There used to be 16/32 bit 
>> CPUs that internally worked with 16 bit words and externally with 32 bits 
>> (or possibly the other way around).
>>
>> One compelling reason could be that Bigger = Better. A native 64 bit 
>> processor can handle integers up to 2^64 ~ 10^19, which admittedly is not 
>> a big advantage (I don't think an integer of such size is useful for 
>> arithmetic), but they also can process 64 bit floating point numbers in 
>> one stride. As far as floating point goes, bigger (more precision!) is 
>> most definitely better.
>
>Floating point processors could deal with 64-bit numbers even with 32-bit 
>processors (in fact even with 16-bit ones).
>
>And 64-bit data/instruction busses on a processor didn't really need it to 
>be 64-bits either.
>
>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?


OS's do, and the OS guy's really hate the more complicated schemes for
address more than the native amount of memory.  In addition, some
important applications do.  Databases, for example, many HPC
workloads...

But to the OP, yes, the 64 bit transition was mainly driven by memory.
Once you had 64 bit addressing, you needed 64 bit registers, then 64
bit operations on those register, etc.  Not that those are bad things
(in some case they're quite useful), but it's much easier to simulate
longer operations than bigger addressing.

Note that some CPUs brought other useful enhancements with 64 bit
mode.  For example, x86 doubled the number of GPRs, but that really is
orthogonal to the addressing issue.

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

64 bit code bob <bob@coolfone.comze.com> - 2012-10-10 08:22 -0700
  Re: 64 bit code Jongware <jongware@no-spam.plz> - 2012-10-10 17:35 +0200
    Re: 64 bit code "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-10 17:37 +0100
      Re: 64 bit code Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-10 12:54 -0500
      Re: 64 bit code Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-10-10 21:37 +0200
        Re: 64 bit code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-10 21:46 -0500
      Re: 64 bit code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-10 20:43 +0100
        Re: 64 bit code "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-10-12 08:40 +0100
          Re: 64 bit code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-12 12:36 -0500
          Re: 64 bit code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 20:57 +0100
            Re: 64 bit code "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-12 21:30 +0100
              Re: 64 bit code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-12 16:33 -0500
                Re: 64 bit code "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-13 00:44 +0100
                Re: 64 bit code Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-10-12 20:07 -0700
              Re: 64 bit code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 11:11 +0100
                Re: 64 bit code "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-13 13:11 +0100
                Re: 64 bit code Willem <willem@turtle.stack.nl> - 2012-10-13 12:34 +0000
                Re: 64 bit code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-13 09:50 -0500
                Re: 64 bit code "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-13 17:25 +0100
                Re: 64 bit code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 17:53 +0100
                Re: 64 bit code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 17:05 +0100
          Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-13 10:37 +0200
            Re: 64 bit code "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-10-27 12:18 +0100
              Re: 64 bit code "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-10-27 12:54 +0100
              Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-27 15:13 +0200
                Re: 64 bit code Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2012-10-28 04:12 -0500
                Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-28 13:10 +0100
                Re: 64 bit code "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> - 2012-10-29 04:38 +0000
                Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-29 09:30 +0100
                Re: 64 bit code "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> - 2012-10-30 22:09 +0000
                Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-31 09:47 +0100
                Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-31 09:55 +0100
                Re: 64 bit code "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> - 2012-10-31 14:32 +0000
            Re: 64 bit code Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-10-27 08:51 -0700
              Re: 64 bit code "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> - 2012-10-27 17:23 +0100
              Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-27 20:43 +0200
                Re: 64 bit code "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> - 2012-10-30 22:16 +0000
                Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-31 09:53 +0100
                Re: 64 bit code "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> - 2012-10-31 14:33 +0000
                Re: 64 bit code Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201211.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-11-01 00:25 +0100
      Re: 64 bit code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-10 21:04 +0100
        Re: 64 bit code "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-10 21:52 +0100
          Re: 64 bit code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-11 10:50 +1300
            Re: 64 bit code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-10 21:54 -0500
              Re: 64 bit code "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-11 13:11 +0100
                Re: 64 bit code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-11 11:17 -0500
      Re: 64 bit code Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-10-10 13:17 -0700
        Re: 64 bit code Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-10-11 19:36 +0200
          Re: 64 bit code Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-10-12 08:13 -0700
    Re: 64 bit code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-10 20:38 +0100
    Re: 64 bit code Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2012-10-10 15:22 -0700
  Re: 64 bit code Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2012-10-12 02:13 -0500

csiph-web