On 2009-Dec-30 00:49:40 -0800, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: >On Dec 29, 2009, at 9:14 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote: >> x86 vs x86_64 isn't as clearcut because the x86 architecture is so >> badly designed - the relatively small number and lack of orthogonality ... >I was under the impression that x86-64 actually tried to resolve some >of the x86 cruft (e.g. adding more registers and increasing their >flexibility), though of course it's still rather constrained due to >backwards compatibility requirements.
Sorry, I meant that x86_64 has various benefits (like additional, useful
addressing modes and additional, orthogonal registers) that at least
partially mitigate the 64-bit downsides - unlike (eg) SPARC. As a
quick check, summing the .so's in OpenOffice (a typical kitchen sink
application), I get:
Text Data BSS Total
x86: 142662399 8040404 421452 151124255
x86_64: 196508472 15792668 696304 212997444
--
Peter Jeremy
pgp5TmXPy8Fy1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
