Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #2306
| Path | csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: 64 bit code |
| Date | Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:37:27 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Lines | 1 |
| 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> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| Injection-Date | Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:37:44 +0000 (UTC) |
| Injection-Info | mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="834da54ce43f3ee3a7b5a28b138be74f"; logging-data="12671"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kZa4V/oYAjeIXKx46tS/R" |
| X-MimeOLE | Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726 |
| In-Reply-To | <507595db$0$6898$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| X-Antivirus-Status | Clean |
| X-Newsreader | Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726 |
| Importance | Normal |
| X-Antivirus | avast! (VPS 121010-0, 10/10/2012), Outbound message |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:BE8m42IZZ/9q7mg7Tq5uUArQTo8= |
| X-Priority | 3 |
| X-MSMail-Priority | Normal |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.programming:2306 |
Show key headers only | View raw
"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