On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 23:17 -0700, steve wrote:
> > The opposite might be true of user
> > code though as developers become presumptive of the compiler doing their
> > work for them :)
>
> Like PHP... which does absolutely no optimizations.
You must not be using an optimizer. It may not be PHP sp
> The opposite might be true of user
> code though as developers become presumptive of the compiler doing their
> work for them :)
Like PHP... which does absolutely no optimizations.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 23:59 -0700, steve wrote:
> Yes and No. PHP could be storing bools as a bit packed in a long word.
> But your point about compiling is sill more valid. Compiling 32bit
> instructions may use instructions that offer off-alignment memory
> referencing. That is -- a bool may actu
Yes and No. PHP could be storing bools as a bit packed in a long word.
But your point about compiling is sill more valid. Compiling 32bit
instructions may use instructions that offer off-alignment memory
referencing. That is -- a bool may actual take only a byte in a 32bit
system. That instruction
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 23:39 -0700, steve wrote:
> > A word boundary usually matches the natural integer size for the
> > processor. In the case of a 32 bit processor it would be 32 bits, in the
> > case of a 64 bit processor it would be 64 bits. This may or may not hold
> > for windows, but more th
> A word boundary usually matches the natural integer size for the
> processor. In the case of a 32 bit processor it would be 32 bits, in the
> case of a 64 bit processor it would be 64 bits. This may or may not hold
> for windows, but more than likely the word size doubles between the 32
> bit arc
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 16:13 -0700, steve wrote:
> Uh... what about boolean? Depending on the compiler and instruction
> set differences, even one-byte things now have to be on longword
> boundaries, meaning that something that is one byte will have to take
> 8 in order to be on proper boundaries. U
Colin Guthrie schreef:
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 11:55 -0700, alexander lind wrote:
For anyone that might be following this thread because they also
have a memory problem (on a 64 bit platform or not), here is some
advice on how to alleviate it:
- Use a bytecode cacher l
Uh... what about boolean? Depending on the compiler and instruction
set differences, even one-byte things now have to be on longword
boundaries, meaning that something that is one byte will have to take
8 in order to be on proper boundaries. Unless the app or compiler is
doing packing, which I don'
On Sep 3, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Colin Guthrie wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 11:55 -0700, alexander lind wrote:
For anyone that might be following this thread because they also
have a memory problem (on a 64 bit platform or not), here is some
advice on how to alleviate i
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 11:55 -0700, alexander lind wrote:
For anyone that might be following this thread because they also have
a memory problem (on a 64 bit platform or not), here is some advice on
how to alleviate it:
- Use a bytecode cacher like xcache. Brought my 1
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 11:51 -0700, alexander lind wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>
> > Colin Guthrie wrote:
> >> Therefore, depending on your structures and how much use of
> >> pointers you use, the size will always be more, but should always
> >> be *less* than ha
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 19:13 +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
> > I do develop in C so I now need to take a stick to you. It's still
> > double space. Use a simple example for yourself. Let's say a struct like
> > following:
> >
> > struct _foo
> > {
> > int i;
> > int j
On Sep 3, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Colin Guthrie wrote:
Colin Guthrie wrote:
Therefore, depending on your structures and how much use of
pointers you use, the size will always be more, but should always
be *less* than half.
Erm, that should read "*less* than double."
If you only ever user your
Colin Guthrie wrote:
Therefore, depending on your structures and how much use of pointers you
use, the size will always be more, but should always be *less* than half.
Erm, that should read "*less* than double."
If you only ever user your stack to store pointers to malloc'ed memory
the size
Robert Cummings wrote:
I do develop in C so I now need to take a stick to you. It's still
double space. Use a simple example for yourself. Let's say a struct like
following:
struct _foo
{
int i;
int j;
int k[5];
} foo;
In 32 bit system we have:
32 bits for i
+ 32 bits for j
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 16:57 +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 16:32 +0200, Aschwin Wesselius wrote:
> >> I don't get it that people still think 64-bit is twice the 'size' of
> >> 32-bit. It's like saying 2 square meters is 2 times a square meter,
> >>
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 16:57 03/09/2008, you wrote:
>
>> Robert Cummings wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 16:32 +0200, Aschwin Wesselius wrote:
>>>
I don't get it that people still think 64-bit is twice the 'size' of
32-bit. It's like sa
At 16:57 03/09/2008, you wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 16:32 +0200, Aschwin Wesselius wrote:
I don't get it that people still think 64-bit is twice the 'size'
of 32-bit. It's like saying 2 square meters is 2 times a square
meter, while actually it is 4 times a square mete
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 16:32 +0200, Aschwin Wesselius wrote:
I don't get it that people still think 64-bit is twice the 'size' of
32-bit. It's like saying 2 square meters is 2 times a square meter,
while actually it is 4 times a square meter.
Actually... 2 square meters
On Sep 3, 2008, at 8:19 AM, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
alexander lind wrote:
Hi All
I just tested my PHP app on Ubuntu 64bit, and found that all my php
scripts would consume about 5x more RAM memory there, compared to
how much they use on my macbook pro (which to make things a bit
more confusi
alexander lind wrote:
Hi All
I just tested my PHP app on Ubuntu 64bit, and found that all my php
scripts would consume about 5x more RAM memory there, compared to how
much they use on my macbook pro (which to make things a bit more
confusing also runs a 64bit OS).
A page that would take up ar
22 matches
Mail list logo
