Re: 64 bit code

From	"BartC" <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups	comp.programming
Subject	Re: 64 bit code
Date	2012-10-10 21:52 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<k54n8b$i3u$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<e5cd117b-219b-49a3-9054-3553ca359f21@googlegroups.com> <507595db$0$6898$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <k5488o$cbv$1@dont-email.me> <k54kd4$g1o$1@speranza.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

"Rui Maciel" <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:k54kd4$g1o$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> BartC wrote:
>
>> And the downside of 64-bit processors is *having* to use 64-bits for
>> things for which 32-bits was perfectly adequate.
>
> Is that really a downside if we can have it all essentially for free?

But it's not free. You need double the memory bandwidth for a start; you've 
got twice the throughput, but if your data has to be twice as wide, then 
you're back where you started! The stack, for example, might insist on 
64-bit values only, ensuring your data is spread out and requiring more 
accesses.

>> They can address over 4GB in one virtual address space, sure, but how
>> many programs actually need to do that?
>
> If a boundary ceases to be there then people start to go through it.  For
> example, I've been developing a number crunching application that
> frequently needs to address more than 4GB of memory.  When I designed it
> I paid no attention to any memory addressing limit because simply there
> isn't one.  If it was there then I would be forced to jump through a
> number of hoops just to go around that limit, and that wouldn't be fun.

But it might be everyone else who has to jump through hoops, if there isn't 
an easy way of using 32-bit pointers in 64-bit code. And *their* application 
might not involve number-crunching, where the overheads of the calculations 
would hide any manipulations (via an indirect register for example) needed 
to get at the data.

> I also must be poitned out that the x86-64 ISA brought more to the table
> than a larger address space.  For example, it has twice the number of
> general purpose registers, and they are all 64-bit.

When the x86-32 (386) came out, many of the new features could be 
immediately accessed even from 16-bit code, eg. using a d32 prefix to make 
use of 32-bit registers and operations. (Using 32-bit address modes was 
harder without OS support.)

With the x86-64, it seems to be all or nothing: either run everything as 
64-bits, or run in compatible 32-bit mode, where you don't have access to 
the extra, wider registers, nor to 64-bit arithmetic.

-- 
Bartc

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