From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JS7SD-0006ba-Ne
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:10:57 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JS7SB-0006aK-W3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:10:57 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JS7SB-0006a5-Lq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:10:55 -0500
Received: from ns8.i-mecca.net ([69.90.29.33])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <andreww@datanet.ab.ca>) id 1JS7SB-0007N8-Ci
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:10:55 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ns8.i-mecca.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5622934605A
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:06:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ns8.i-mecca.net ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (ns8.i-mecca.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 9gKr2hHEjqlx for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>;
	Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:06:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [207.153.31.33] (dialin-207-153-31-33.edm.oa.net
	[207.153.31.33])
	by ns8.i-mecca.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2EA8346021
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:06:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <47BD3F6A.2040505@datanet.ab.ca>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:07:54 -0700
From: Andrew Warkentin <andreww@datanet.ab.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] precompiled qemu-system-x86_64 is 32 bit instead
	of	64bit
References: <20080219160909.GA8699@gh.bbcons.de>	<0AEA348F28904FDD9A47D3E704F4D8D2@intranet>	<47BD32C8.2000705@datanet.ab.ca>
	<761ea48b0802210043k372471c9q9ad9caf7f4982869@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <761ea48b0802210043k372471c9q9ad9caf7f4982869@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Laurent Desnogues wrote:

>On 2/21/08, Andrew Warkentin <andreww@datanet.ab.ca> wrote:
>  
>
>> Why does it matter if it is 64-bit or not? Most programs at the moment
>> don't benefit from being compiled 64-bit. I don't get the obsession with
>> 64-bitness that most Linux and BSD people seem to have.
>>    
>>
>
>I have programs that run significantly faster when targetting x86_64
>(Othello back-end solver, various prime sieves, interpreted simulator,
>MAME [cf. http://aarongiles.com/pix/benchmarks.png])., where
>significantly means >10%.  I agree I can't qualify my list as "most
>programs", but on the other hand I have yet to see one of my
>programs running slower as x86_64 bit mode (though I guess some
>programs with heavy usage of pointers could be in trouble).
>
>Did anyone compare qemu ia32 vs x86_64?
>
>
>Laurent
>
>
>
>  
>
I guess on x86, there is somewhat of a benefit, because of the extra 
registers. On any decent architecture, 32- and 64-bit programs would run 
at the same speed. Still, I don't think that it's worth having separate 
32- and 64-bit versions of operating systems over, even on x86.