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.
-
-
Replying to @pcwalton
Well arm64 is pretty good as far as load/store isas go too
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And while x86 may have been space optimized once, decades of extensions and prefixes completely ruined it
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @slava_pestov @jckarter
Yep. I keep saying this, but it feels like nobody believes me :)
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton @slava_pestov
Probably a legacy of the i386 vs PowerPC days. There are better RISC ISAs, and x86 has gotten heftier, since then
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jckarter @slava_pestov
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
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Yep. Context was actually bashing ia64: https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/x86.html … Which, I mean, in fairness:pic.twitter.com/WFog1zNTja
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
“And last I heard, by the time Itanium 2 is up at 2GHz, the P4 is apparently going to be at 5GHz”
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton @graydon_pub and
The 31-stage pipelining in NetBurst is a sight to behold…Intel sure loves design heroics :)
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton @graydon_pub and
did they call it that because the netlist was bursting at the seams?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
It’s because if it mispredicts a branch your CPU explodes
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.