Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #2334
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: 64 bit code |
| Date | 2012-10-13 00:44 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <k5aa31$1pn$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <k54j49$cns$1@speranza.aioe.org> <162dnU-Rw5IpVOrNnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d@bt.com> <k59snb$oqm$1@speranza.aioe.org> <k59un2$qem$1@dont-email.me> <k5a2hk$dve$1@news.albasani.net> |
"BGB" <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:k5a2hk$dve$1@news.albasani.net... > On 10/12/2012 3:30 PM, BartC wrote: >> "Rui Maciel" <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> Hence, why bother? >> It's worth bothering with! >> > > but it is an inconvenient size in that it requires 80 bits to store, which > is not much more than 64 bits, but kills power-of-2 alignment, whereas a > 64-bit double is still aligned by a power-of-2. 80-bits might have been intended for intermediate results only, hence no need to store them in that form in memory, although it was possible to do so. And when they were stored, it was more likely for individual results, rather than an array of such values. > the next power-of-2 size is 128 bits, but using a 128-bit space to store > an 80-bit value isn't very good, as nearly 1/2 of it is wasted (this is > often what ends up in compilers though). But, this thread also discussed shorter pointers (such as 40-bit ones, enough to address approx 1TB of RAM) needing 64 bits to store them in. That 40/64 ratio is the same as 80/128! While the spare 48 bits between 80-bit floats could be used to store useful data in a way not possible with the pointers. -- 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