Author: Bo Persson
Date: 01:58:39 08/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2003 at 11:26:36, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 04, 2003 at 09:43:40, Bo Persson wrote: > >>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. > >you are just guessing a % here. the entire kernel is assembly though. Yes, I am just guessing here. Unlike Eugene I don't have the source at hand. Let's call it an "estimate", and not a guess. You pointed out that kernel32.dll didn't look like C code. I don't know that, but can see that it is a small file and even though it contains a lot of text resources, it is still only 0.1% of the total file sizes of my /winnt directory. So I made a guess, that maybe even 5 or 10 times that much could be assembly code. It would still be no more than 1% of the total size. I don't call that "much", or "the entire kernel". > >let's be clear. i'm not saying that the entire kernel being assembly is a >problem to move it. seemingly reading nalimov's words correctly they have a C >version too, which for the itanium i can consider as being a good idea. writing >assembly for it is a horror. > >For the x86-64 i bet they want an assembly version too, because the platform is >going to be very important. Or they could make sure that they have one of the best compilers available. Guess what Eugene is working on. :-) I once got my first copy of the MS C compiler with the Windows 1.0 beta. Wonder why! > >linux does not have such problems. there is hardly software working for it! :-) 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.