25 Sep
2018
25 Sep
'18
7:48 p.m.
On 2018-Sep-25 08:01:52 -0700, Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:00:37AM +0100, Tony Finch
wrote:
I agree that looks like an interesting paper - I've skimmed it and
will have to read it in details. I was thinking back to when I was
using a mixture of SPARC and x86 at a previous job. I didn't do any
careful analysis, more eyeballing various executables and gut feeling.
I no longer have access to that environment. In view of that paper,
I'll withdraw my claim since it's not backed up by evidence.
--
Peter Jeremy
Peter Jeremy <peter(a)rulingia.com> wrote:
That's a neat paper, I like it, thanks for the pointer. I'm curious
why Peter thought what he thought, my guess would have been more like
what the paper showed, but that was a "hand optimized assembly", maybe
the compilers aren't that good? I dunno, Peter, care to comment? In the specific case of x86, I would dispute
that. The various warts in
the x86 instruction set and "architecture" mean that x86 code density is
relatively low and on a par with SPARC code.
This paper has a nice survey of instruction set densities, which very much
disagrees with your statement:
http://web.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/papers/iccd09/iccd09_density.pdf