x86 is space efficient, you say? AArch64: sub x9,x10,x11: 4 bytes. x86-64: mov r9,r10; sub r9,r11: 6 bytes. (Can’t use LEA here.) AArch64: sub x9,x10,#1234: 4 bytes. x86-64: lea r9,[r10-1234]: 7 bytes.
-
-
Probably a legacy of the i386 vs PowerPC days. There are better RISC ISAs, and x86 has gotten heftier, since then
-
I think it’s because Linus had a rant back in the Pentium 4 days about how awesome and space efficient x86 was and people still have that impression
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I love that RISC-V people agree and this knowledge feeds right into the design of the compressed ISA!https://twitter.com/eddyb_r/status/1103877494313119746?s=19 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I believe you. Don’t listen to them.
-
Yeah, with x86-64 and newer compilers, one pays some penalties here; but, 32b x86 and older compilers (~ 10-15 yo) fared a little better in my tests. One of the main front-runners for small binaries in my testing has generally been Thumb2.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.