1 |
No, I have no reason aside from pure geek value. I was under the, |
2 |
probably false, impression that sparc64 executables could move data |
3 |
around faster. i.e. doubles could be loaded in fewer clock cycles. So |
4 |
I have 2 questions that maybe you can answer, |
5 |
|
6 |
1) Is the only advantage to a sparc64 executable access to memory larger |
7 |
than 2G per process? |
8 |
2) Assuming yes to question 1, then what is with the hype with 64bit |
9 |
processors? |
10 |
|
11 |
On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 16:44, Josh Grebe wrote: |
12 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
13 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
14 |
> |
15 |
> There are a few of us who have them, built to various stages, but they |
16 |
> are generally not useful. This has been well covered elsewhere, but the |
17 |
> short story is "its slower and uses more memory in almost all cases". |
18 |
> |