On Dec 17, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Jim Klimov wrote: > On 2012-12-17 06:59, Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> Oh, and it assumes no one needs 32-bit binaries any more, since all Solaris >> 11 >> users have to be running the 64-bit kernel since the 32-bit kernel was >> EOL'ed. >> (32-bit libraries are still there for binary compatibility with other >> programs, >> it's just most of the /usr/bin/x* commands converted to 64-bit.) >> >> If you care about 32-bit support, that's one more change you'll have to undo. > > Well, I may probably get corrected (and should, if need be) - but > in such discussions I've always thought (and heard) that these are > two different things. 64-bit kernel is for optimal harnessing of > hardware with large (>4gb) memory and perhaps wider instructions > on CPU. > > 64-bit or 32-bit userspace programs is about addressing virtual > memory again and large files to an extent (AFAIK the latter can > be used with 32-bit programs too). 64-bit userspace with "small" > programs like many UNIX command-line tools, GUI applets, etc. > which don't feasibly need to juggle gigabytes of data at once - > now, that would also be about wasting RAM and CPU cycles on > pushing around more bytes of pointers and other increased > structures with no practical gain. > > Am I wrong to maintain this point of view?
>From what I've heard, even for programs that don't need lots of memory, on >x86-64 (amd64) hardware, 64-bit is often better performing (due to additional >registers?); while that's less likely to be true on SPARC. -- eMail: mailto:[email protected] Home page: http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil/ Facebook, MySpace, AIM, Yahoo, etc: ask _______________________________________________ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
