On 12/20/11 13:09, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
On 12/20/11 12:26, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
What would you prefer?
I'd prefer not supporting broken hacks pretending to be new ABI models.
Is there any real benefit to "AMD64-x32" over simply x86-32
Whole AMD64 ISA is accessible: twice as much registers (including xmm/ymm),
instruction extensions available only in "long mode".
It helps help codecs embedded into browsers and players.
C calling convention uses registers (first six integer parameters go to
registers)
which reduces stack memory traffic.
Quite nice comparing to what we have in ia32.
So use AMD64 then.
or AMD64 for X applications?
Pointer memory footprint is on ia32 level. Saves Dcache and RAM for huge
programs
with large amount of references (like firefox and KDE).
Few of the X.Org applications will fall into that set.
In any case, if it's so useful, why not make a real ABI out of it, instead of
breaking the existing AMD64 ABI defines? Just define __amd64_x32__ or
whatever instead, don't break existing code that knows what __amd64__ means.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System
_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
