Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 04:27:57PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > "Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [resorted by size] > > > architecture | size > > > --------------+------------ > > > i386 | 3378532922 > > > ia64 | 3394287226 > > > And people allways say that 64 Bit archs need much bigger executables. > > And ia64 was the biggest on the list, despite having 600 fewer packages > than i386 according to Marcelo's followup post. So what was your point > Goswin?
Just saying that bit size has not much to do with code size. The opcodes available have more impact, or so it seems. MfG Goswin