Author: Bo Persson
Date: 06:43:40 08/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2003 at 07:59:48, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 04, 2003 at 07:43:04, Bo Persson wrote: > >>On August 04, 2003 at 05:41:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On August 04, 2003 at 04:39:56, Bo Persson wrote: >>> >>>hi, >>> >>>it's not so difficult to get a look&feel for it. >>> >>>a 5 line tool of mine that just prints text out of binary files. so not a >>>dissassembler at all. >>> >>>Kernel32.dll : nothing what i searched for >>>winfax.dll : nothing what i searched for >>>gpedit.dll : >>> >>>"normal program termination R6009 - not enough space for environment R6 >>>008 - not enough space for arguments R6002 - floating point not loaded >>> Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library Runtime Error! Program: .. >>>. <program name unknown> IsProcessorFeaturePresent KERNEL32 " >>> >>>Do i need to spell it out? >>> >> >>Yes, please. >> >>Do you mean that kernel32 does not link to the C library? Surprise. I wonder >>what services the C library is linking to... >> >>On my NT4 machine I can also see than kernel32.dll is 0.3 MB out of the 358 MB >>in the /winnt directory. That's about 0.1%, or so. >> >>I can also see that the hardware interface hal.dll is 51k. Might also contain >>lots of assembler code. >> >>What about the other 300+ MB ? > >So in your eyes the kernel is 300MB????? > >are you out of your mind? :-) > >important is functionality like a program that asks a system function like >GetTickCount() > >Then you want that as quick as possible and C code won't do that for the kernel! > >Anyway this is all theoretic discussion. > >It's assembly. Vincent earlier wrote: >>I guess they are working hard and basic problem is not only that m$ is 32 bits >>in some respects (file systems and such already long period ago 64 bits in 1995) >>but especially that their kernel stuff is written in assembly. > >> It is hard for me to understand why so much is in assembler and why there >> seemingly is no x bits 'C' version which they can compile on any hardware >> with little effort. Ok, we agree that there is "some assembly required". I can see that it might be 0.1%, or 0.5%. or even 1.0% of the code base. I wouldn't call that "so much", or see that it would be a problem to move it to x86-64 when they have already tried it out for Alpha, Itanium, and others. If you think otherwise, fine. Bo Persson bop2@telia.com
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.