On Feb 20, 2008 6:32 AM, Matt Ingenthron <Matt.Ingenthron at sun.com> wrote: > > > I keep meaning to send out a pointer on this one. I don't know if it's > been noticed, but there was a slight thread of discussion on 32/64 after > I wrote that blog on using svccfg to switch from 32 to 64-bit: > http://blogs.sun.com/mingenthron/entry/opensolaris_web_stack_setting_services#comments > > Based on those comments, I still don't think isaexec is appropriate > here, but I'm very much out of my area. There could be a good argument > here I'm not privy to. > > He makes a good point on the 64-bit being faster on by default on x64 > based systems. > > Before this arc case goes forward adopting "enable_64bit", I thought > this was worth bring up on the list to discuss. Is there any case here > where isaexec makes sense? > > I believe we'll need to deliver both, and there are probably still a > number of reasons (for now) that one may choose to run 32-bit even on a > system with a 64-bit ISA, which means there has to be a switch somewhere > to pick what one wants to run.
If you have an x64 system then running in 64-bit is clearly the right choice, so isaexec would work fine and would probably be the right choice there. It might be useful to do a comparison on sparc. But my general experience there is that 64-bit isn't generally better and is only usually worth it if you need the extra addressability. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
