Re: Compiler stress test

Subject	Re: Compiler stress test
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
References	(6 earlier) <q3gmvb$36n$1@dont-email.me> <WaV6E.311535$1D1.6058@fx29.am4> <q3hakm$e2f$1@dont-email.me> <q3i7ql$bvg$1@dont-email.me> <q3ib7q$18f$1@dont-email.me>
From	Bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Message-ID	<m337E.332445$1D1.4165@fx29.am4> (permalink)
Organization	virginmedia.com
Date	2019-02-07 23:20 +0000

Show all headers | View raw

On 07/02/2019 22:24, David Brown wrote:
> On 07/02/2019 22:26, jacobnavia wrote:
>> Le 07/02/2019 à 14:08, David Brown a écrit :
>>> In the Windows world, 32-bit Windows is still common.
>>
>>
>> Windows Vista started in 2006 and offered the first 64 bit windows. 
>> Since then, 64 bit systems are the norm since there is since 2004 no 
>> intel CPU is 32 bit.
>>
> 
> The first 64-bit Windows was XP, not Vista.  (I had 64-bit XP on a PC.) 
> It was in 2005 (or 2002, for the Itanium).  Windows Vista was 
> universally condemned as a low point in Windows development, and was 
> never popular - much less the 64-bit version.  64-bit Windows only 
> really became mainstream with Windows 7 at the end of 2009.
> 
> (For comparison, Linux supported 64-bit since 1995 on the Alpha, and 
> fully supported x86-64 in 2001 before hardware was even available.)
> 
> So 64-bit Windows started having a non-negligible market share about ten 
> years ago.  Now, about half the Windows systems running are Win10 
> (almost all 64-bit), and about half are Win7 (with about half of these 
> being 32-bit, I would guess).  I failed to find good statistics, so if 
> you have a link you can certainly correct me - but my guess is something 
> like 20% of Windows systems are still 32-bit.

It's been some years now since since you've been able to easily buy 
32-bit hardware for consumer PCs. (I think even RaspberryPi is 64-bit now.)

That's why I've turned my back on 32-bit machines, and my languages have 
switched to 64-bit, with 64-bit pointers, 64-bit default ints, 64-bit 
int constants and 64-bit everything (except chars and bytes that are 
still 8 bits).

And it's why it would be a surprise to find a recent version of a C 
compiler for such machines, to itself be built as a 32-bit program.

(C of course still uses 32-bit ints for the most part (for these PCs), 
with narrower types widened to 32 bits, but now there is also a 
discontinuity between 32 bits and 64 bits:

     int16 * int16 * int16 * int16

will be evaluated as int32 and could overflow int32, but would give the 
right answer as int64.)

> 
> 2004 is when Intel shipped its first 64-bit x86 processor, and their 
> last 32-bit only mainstream processor was just after that (I think). 
> However, the most recently released Intel 32-bit only x86 processor is 
> the Quark SE C1000 from late 2015.  To be fair, the Quark processors are 
> aimed at embedded systems rather than desktops.
> 
> Still, the Windows world is /slow/ to move to new technology.  All x86 
> processors were 32-bit long before Windows got any serious 32-bit 
> support

That didn't matter as much for 32-bits: the 80386 was introduced in the 
late 80s I think, but on that device, it was possible to use 32-bit data 
instructions and registers even from a 16-bit program running under a 
16-bit OS. (This is what I did in my compilers, long before everything 
else caught up.)

That wasn't possible with x64, where new 64-bit features can only be 
used in full 64-bit mode, and requires system support.

Thread

Compiler stress test jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-05 10:30 +0100
  Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-05 22:50 +1300
    Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-05 22:56 +1300
      strict aliasing rule on buffers slacked.misha@gmail.com - 2019-02-05 13:33 +0100
        Re: strict aliasing rule on buffers Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-02-05 08:13 -0500
        Re: strict aliasing rule on buffers Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2019-02-05 06:00 -0800
        Re: strict aliasing rule on buffers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-05 15:33 +0100
        Re: strict aliasing rule on buffers Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-05 14:36 +0000
        Re: strict aliasing rule on buffers James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-05 07:27 -0800
    Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-07 08:28 +1300
      Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-06 19:48 +0000
      Re: Compiler stress test jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-06 22:11 +0100
        Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 00:34 +0100
          Re: Compiler stress test jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-07 07:13 +0100
            Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 08:32 +0100
              Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-07 12:06 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 14:08 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-07 13:49 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 17:01 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-07 22:26 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 23:24 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-07 23:20 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-08 10:42 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-08 16:37 +1300
                Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-08 12:30 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 08:18 -0800
                Re: Compiler stress test scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-08 16:04 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-02-11 20:34 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-08 16:30 +1300
  Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 12:20 +0000
    Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 09:59 +1300
      Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 21:57 +0000
        Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 00:29 +0100
          Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 23:58 +0000
            Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 14:10 +1300
              Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-06 01:16 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 14:21 +1300
                Re: Compiler stress test Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2019-02-06 01:28 -0500
                Re: Compiler stress test Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2019-02-08 03:51 -0500
            Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 08:13 +0100
      Re: Compiler stress test BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 13:13 -0600

csiph-web