From: Alexey Dobriyan
> Sent: 04 April 2017 12:36
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Craig Gallek wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> >> Number of sockets is limited by 16-bit, so 64-bit allocation will never
> >> happen.
> >>
> >> 16-bit ops are the worst code dens
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Craig Gallek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> Number of sockets is limited by 16-bit, so 64-bit allocation will never
>> happen.
>>
>> 16-bit ops are the worst code density-wise on x86_64 because of
>> additional prefix (66).
> So
From: Alexey Dobriyan
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 01:18:23 +0300
> Number of sockets is limited by 16-bit, so 64-bit allocation will never
> happen.
>
> 16-bit ops are the worst code density-wise on x86_64 because of
> additional prefix (66).
>
> Space savings:
>
> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink:
On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> Number of sockets is limited by 16-bit, so 64-bit allocation will never
> happen.
>
> 16-bit ops are the worst code density-wise on x86_64 because of
> additional prefix (66).
So this boils down to a compiled code density vs a
readability/ma
