Re: AMD64 Status Update -- And Future Directions
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Chris Cheney wrote:
> IMHO the FHS/LSB is braindamaged in this respect. They consider i386 to
> be the preferred arch for amd64, but consider ia64 to be the preferred
> arch on ia64, even though both can run i386. From John's post it appears
> alpha could even run i386 at one time. Either they should define all 64bit
> stuff go into /lib64 or else deprecate /lib altogether and use something
> like /lib32 and /lib64 or /lib/$arch/... Personally I think the
> /lib/$arch stuff would be more interesting if feasible since you could
> have different subarch optimized libraries as well.
This just means that, in the opinion of the
architecture-designers/standards-setters, i386, ia64, and alpha
binaries are likely to be faster than amd64, i386, and i386 binaries,
resepectively. The only comparison here which is even worthy of debate is
i386/amd64, and so far no one has been able to show me *any* numbers which
indicate that amd64 is *ever* faster when running both applications in a
given fixed memory size. I believe this statement, however, to be true.
The next question is whether amd64 is *always* faster than i386, for a
given fixed memory size. I believe this statement is false.
The middle ground is where disagreements lie, and it really doesn't matter
at all.
--scott
pending IDEA United Nations TASS nuclear Bejing SSBN 731 FBI struggle
Cheney spy Flintlock NSA DC President arrangements Chechnya Washington
( http://cscott.net/ )
Reply to: