| |||||||||||||
Pettenò: Debunking x32 mythsPettenò: Debunking x32 mythsPosted Jun 26, 2012 11:21 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: Pettenò: Debunking x32 myths by ebirdie Parent article: Pettenò: Debunking x32 myths
Any performance gains I get by using x32 is going to be more then wiped out by any sort of time and effort it takes to deal with software incompatibilities caused by having a different ABI.
(Log in to post comments)
Pettenò: Debunking x32 myths Posted Jun 26, 2012 19:20 UTC (Tue) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]
Those applications would probably break a lot less if the decision was made to use L64P32 instead of ILP32. Is that too late to fix?
Pettenò: Debunking x32 myths Posted Jun 26, 2012 21:00 UTC (Tue) by Flameeyes (subscriber, #51238) [Link]
It is. And it's one of my complaints, if you read the original article. They came up with this ABI too late in the game (most software has been soundly tested, or even entirely developed, on amd64), and with too little common points to either x86 or amd64 to make it easy to port.
So the (IMHO little) benefit on the data cache utilisation is made useless by the huge effort and compatibility issues brought in by having a full new ABI. Which is probably why the original presentation "sold" x32 as a closed-system ABI, not a generic one, like it seems people expect it to be right now.
|
|||||||||||||