Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed

Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
28 Apr 2007 23:28:16 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[13 earlier articles]
Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2007-04-18)
Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed haberg@math.su.se (2007-04-23)
Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed haberg@math.su.se (2007-04-23)
Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2007-04-25)
Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed haberg@math.su.se (2007-04-26)
Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed haberg@math.su.se (2007-04-27)
Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed jon@ffconsultancy.com (Jon Harrop) (2007-04-28)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 28 Apr 2007 23:28:16 -0400
Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
References: 07-04-031
Keywords: architecture, performance
Posted-Date: 28 Apr 2007 23:28:16 EDT

Jon Forrest wrote:
> Let's say you're a Linux user who never needs to run programs that
> don't fit in 32-bits. Would you run a 32-bit or a 64-bit version of
> Linux?


64 bit for me. I have found that both g++ and the OCaml compilers
produce much faster code for my kind of work under 64 bit. This is
typified by my ray tracer language comparison:


    http://www.ffconsultancy.com/languages/ray_tracer/


--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
The F#.NET Journal
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?usenet

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.