34 ms·
> C is very close to the hardware At this point, I'd more say that the hardware does an awful lot of work trying to look like it's close to C.
by dllthomas 10y ago
> C is very close to the hardware
At this point, I'd more say that the hardware does an awful lot of work trying to look like it's close to C.
- bradhe 10y agoIt's an interesting phenomenon, specifically how processor companies (erm, Intel), who make "general purpose" CPUs, have clearly made trade offs to optimize for OSes that behave like UNIX or Windows varients!
- dbcurtis 10y agoWell, in fact, Intel and all the other major makers spend a huge amount of effort benchmarking important workloads. It isn't a decision to optimize for Unix or Windows, it is a decision to chase dollars. They will optimize processors for your favorite workload, too. Just demonstrate how many millions of dollars of business your workload represents, and create some sound benchmarks for it. Easy.
- dman 10y agoAny information on how many millions before a workload becomes interesting to Intel/AMD/Nvidia?
- jakub_h 10y agoWell it's certainly better than what they were doing before, trying to look like the iAPX 432 with their memory segments and all that stuff.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- lohankin 10y agoThis seems to be changing. Hardware is trying to move closer to java -by adding support of GC, bounds checks, etc - something that won't help C programs as much.
- Sanddancer 10y agoUnfortunately, the C compiler devs didn't implement the bounds checking extensions of C11, etc. It would have been really nice to have a good checked C that was the standard.