On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 12:43:38PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 12:39:25PM +0200, Cyrille Chepelov wrote: > > Reg pressure is pretty bad on x86; and int is still 32 bit on x86-64 > > (IIRC, long is 64 bit and of course any T* ). So yes, anything which > > plays with pointers will be larger on x86-64, but it's not an > > automatic doubling in size of everything. And mapping libraries twice > > also eats a good deal of memory. OTOH, 16 general-purpose 8,16,32 or > > 64-bit registers (not even counting a large SSE2 register file as > > well) should help gcc feel more at home (especially with less code > > dedicated to handling register<->memory swap-outs) > > > > I don't have numbers to back either choice, but it looks to me that a > > mixed userland with everything duplicated should be a last resort. And > > I'm sure some people have numbers out these. > > Based on the numbers I've seen, the factors mentioned seem to balance > each other out fairly well. I'm not (yet) allowed to talk about the > details though ...
(And what I mean by this is that the x86-64 seems to have bloody good 32-bit performance, not poor 64-bit performance. :)) -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
