Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #2306
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: 64 bit code |
| Date | 2012-10-10 17:37 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <k5488o$cbv$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <e5cd117b-219b-49a3-9054-3553ca359f21@googlegroups.com> <507595db$0$6898$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
"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? -- Bartc
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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