Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 04:09:32 -0600 From: "Paul A. Procacci" <pprocacci@datapipe.com> To: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> Cc: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RAM not recognized Message-ID: <47CD1FDC.9090007@datapipe.com> In-Reply-To: <18380.53126.160647.421844@jerusalem.litteratus.org> References: <47CC940B.5000400@123.com.sv> <47CC9BC0.1090408@datapipe.com> <18380.40222.870279.279849@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20080304034416.1ae48519@gumby.homeunix.com.> <18380.53126.160647.421844@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Huff wrote: > RW writes: > > >> And also bear in mind that amd64 uses memory less efficiently >> than i386 >> > > Would you care to elaborate? (A pointer will do.) > > > > Robert Huff > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > The only 'less efficient' thing 64-bit programs have, are larger pointers as well as other potenial data items. Though I'm not sure I'd consider this 'less efficient'. Ok, so we have larger binaries and a bit more ram usage for the aforementioned, but isn't that all? I'd guess to say yes, and if it is, then that's not so bad. In fact, I don't think I'd even call is an inefficiency. My 2 cents.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47CD1FDC.9090007>