3 ms·
Its unfortunate that the x86 camp is splintering, with developers caught in the crossfire unable to find a compiler that works well on all x86 processors, while
by chubs 15y ago
Its unfortunate that the x86 camp is splintering, with developers caught in the crossfire unable to find a compiler that works well on all x86 processors, while the world drifts towards ARM...
- maximilianburke 15y agoI wouldn't say that. ARM as splintered as the x86 world, if not more so, with processors implementing some combination of softfp/VFP/NEON/Thumb/Thumb2/ThumbEE/Jazelle, not to mention multiple ABIs. Yes the x86 camp may have different feature sets but it will be handled like all previous extensions to the architecture: these features will be expected to exist (for single deployment targets), detected via CPUID and code that uses these instructions will be selected appropriately at runtime, or they will be ignored.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- wickedchicken 15y agoThe thing is though, I can't tell if these arguments also apply to x86-64. AMD started with a clean slate without caring about backwards compatibility, so I wonder if a lot of these squabbles are about a legacy instruction set?
- xpaulbettsx 15y agoThese things absolutely apply to x86-64; there are actually two separate instruction sets, AMD64 and EMT64 - the same Venn diagram-style nonsense applies.
- maximilianburke 15y agoAMD64 and EM64T are the instruction set, EM64T (now Intel 64) is Intel's branding. Perhaps you're thinking of the Itanium's instruction set, IA-64? It's wholly incompatible with anything previous, and likely anything future.
- wtallis 15y agoMore likely, he's thinking of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Differences_between_AMD64_and_Intel_64 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Differences_between_AMD6...