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