Re: Linux/IA-64 byte order

doctor@fruitbat.org
Thu, 11 Mar 1999 21:58:36 -0800 (PST)


Andreas Schwab said ...
>
> doctor@fruitbat.org writes:
>
> |> (Not to want to create flames, but I do recall that m68k processors have
> |> always been better performers than their x86 equivalents).
>
> But surely not because of endianness, but most likely rather due to the
> bigger register set.

Nope, the endianness was not a real contributor to the advantages in
performance. My comment above appears to allude to BE as a reason for
m68ks improved performance. It was not, really.

Yes, a larger general purpose data and address register set was a big
contributor. One detractor for the Intel architecture was that the
segmented addressing added complexity to the addressing logic. Basically
the segment+offset had to be calculated, instead of simply using a linear
address to begin with. But, you got 20 bits of addressing and a
facility for relocating code, data, etc. in 64k segments. This would
have been sufficient for it's time, except programmers quickly out grew
the 64k limitation.

> --
> Andreas Schwab "And now for something

-- 
Peter A. Castro (doctor@fruitbat.org) or (pcastro@us.oracle.com)

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/