Re: XCode 2.4 and 32/64-bit universal binaries
Re: XCode 2.4 and 32/64-bit universal binaries
- Subject: Re: XCode 2.4 and 32/64-bit universal binaries
- From: David Duncan <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 02:03:26 -0400
On Aug 21, 2006, at 12:36 AM, Herbie Robinson wrote:
In the Intel case, the architecture is much better (16 registers,
not 8) and from what I have heard the architecture more than makes
up for the extra caching. The ABI passes arguments in registers
instead of on the stack, too.
I'll presume your comparing Intel 32-bit vs Intel 64-bit here. As far
as the ABI passing in registers, that's beyond my knowledge, I know
PPC did it, and Intel 32-bit doesn't, but dunno about Intel 64-bit.
It actually makes performance sense to use the 64 bit instructions
with a 32 bit pointer data type. I'm a little surprised Apple
didn't (or did they -- I haven't looked at any assembly language).
There is a (G5-only AFAIK) compilation mode that allows you to use
native 64-bit integer operations in a 32-bit memory space. It meant
using G5-only instructions and thus requiring 2 binaries at a time
when a minority of the platform was capable of running them. I
suspect even up to the announcement of the Intel Switch the G5
represented a minority of the platform.
--
Reality is what, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Failure is not an option. It is a privilege reserved for those who try.
David Duncan
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Coreaudio-api mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden