| 1 |
64bit means bugs.?? But I use 64. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
2012/7/17 Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info>: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Jul 17, 2012 10:08 AM, "Michael Mol" <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> --- >8 |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> IMO, it's worth the 'overhead' to run 64-bit, if only for the greater |
| 12 |
>> number of GPRs and other architectural improvements. There's honestly |
| 13 |
>> a lot of good stuff in x86-64 beyond the larger address space. The |
| 14 |
>> increased address space also helps long-lived programs avoid address |
| 15 |
>> space fragmentation. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> -- |
| 18 |
>> :wq |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> +1 on architectural improvements. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> From a purely data-wise view: with 64 bits, Long Integers will be handled |
| 24 |
> much faster than having to manhandle 2 32-bit chunks of half-integers. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Rgds, |
Archives