From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Sr7zp-0000JD-Pf for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:39:26 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 23CB9E056C; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:38:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from svr-us4.tirtonadi.com (svr-us4.tirtonadi.com [69.65.43.212]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48E0E056C for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:36:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f181.google.com ([209.85.220.181]:50946) by svr-us4.tirtonadi.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Sr7we-001iEH-F9 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:36:08 +0700 Received: by vcbfl17 with SMTP id fl17so280999vcb.40 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 06:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.209.80 with SMTP id gf16mr1142577vcb.58.1342532165161; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 06:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.221.0.199 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 06:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.221.0.199 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 06:36:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:36:05 +0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 32bit or 64bit From: Pandu Poluan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54ee282cdd28f04c506a00d X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - svr-us4.tirtonadi.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.gentoo.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - poluan.info X-Archives-Salt: a3c2a369-fe6b-4033-aade-48f67ef3f0f1 X-Archives-Hash: d912cbfb17c761b033ed4fe7987f437f --bcaec54ee282cdd28f04c506a00d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Jul 17, 2012 10:08 AM, "Michael Mol" wrote: > --- >8 > > IMO, it's worth the 'overhead' to run 64-bit, if only for the greater > number of GPRs and other architectural improvements. There's honestly > a lot of good stuff in x86-64 beyond the larger address space. The > increased address space also helps long-lived programs avoid address > space fragmentation. > > -- > :wq > +1 on architectural improvements. >From a purely data-wise view: with 64 bits, Long Integers will be handled much faster than having to manhandle 2 32-bit chunks of half-integers. Rgds, --bcaec54ee282cdd28f04c506a00d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8


On Jul 17, 2012 10:08 AM, "Michael Mol" <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>
--- >8
>
> IMO, it's worth the 'overhead' to run 64-bit, if only for the greater
> number of GPRs and other architectural improvements. There's honestly
> a lot of good stuff in x86-64 beyond the larger address space. The
> increased address space also helps long-lived programs avoid address
> space fragmentation.
>
> --
> :wq
>

+1 on architectural improvements.

From a purely data-wise view: with 64 bits, Long Integers will be handled much faster than having to manhandle 2 32-bit chunks of half-integers.

Rgds,

--bcaec54ee282cdd28f04c506a00d--