Am 02.01.2015 um 23:02 schrieb Jonas Maebe:
> On 02/01/15 22:12, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>> Am 02.01.2015 um 21:34 schrieb Jonas Maebe:
And except for AArch64, where 32 bit will, in principle, also be more
efficient than 64 bit in all cases. It can even use the lower 8/16/32
bit of a
On 02/01/15 22:12, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> Am 02.01.2015 um 21:34 schrieb Jonas Maebe:
>> > And except for AArch64, where 32 bit will, in principle, also be more
>> > efficient than 64 bit in all cases. It can even use the lower 8/16/32
>> > bit of a register as index in a memory references and si
Am 02.01.2015 um 21:34 schrieb Jonas Maebe:
> On 02/01/15 21:16, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>> Am 02.01.2015 um 19:31 schrieb Juha Manninen:
>>> Does it make sense to use PtrInt instead of Integer for optimization or
>>> code size reasons?
>>
>> Hard to say, but I wouldn't expect a benefit because big
On 02/01/15 21:16, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> Am 02.01.2015 um 19:31 schrieb Juha Manninen:
>> Does it make sense to use PtrInt instead of Integer for optimization or code
>> size reasons?
>
> Hard to say, but I wouldn't expect a benefit because bigger data types means
> also more cache pollution.
Am 02.01.2015 um 19:31 schrieb Juha Manninen:
> Does it make sense to use PtrInt instead of Integer for optimization or code
> size reasons?
Hard to say, but I wouldn't expect a benefit because bigger data types means
also more cache pollution.
> In other words, does the compiler generate faste
Does it make sense to use PtrInt instead of Integer for optimization or
code size reasons?
In other words, does the compiler generate faster or smaller code in 64-bit
CPUs for the native integer size?
Does it depend on architecture?
Regards,
Juha
___
fpc
