So, with 64-bit machines we have access to a larger address space than we'll ever need (64k should be enough etc.) and only a tiny fraction of that is mapped to anything sensible on my machine at least. Why not make addresses denser than 8-bits then?
We should have addressable bits! Of course, reading bytes or words would still have to be aligned. I belive this is the next great step in computing.
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-13 13:26
ADDRESS MY ANUS
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-13 13:33
Educate yourself
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-13 14:59
Bit-addressable computing architectures are older than the 8-bit byte, ``faggot''.
Or do like Java does and use 32-bit pointers to address up to 32GB of memory, as objects are guaranteed to be 8-byte aligned there.
Really, the whole 64-bit thing has gone out of hand. The processors support just 48 bits, some OSes further clamp that to 232 pages (44 bits total), and in either case it's a tremendous waste in the vast majority of the cases.
Most memory-heavy stuff, such as web browsers, easily consume 20-30% more memory on 64-bit mode. That's awful. I just use 32-bit versions of these.
So, what I'm trying to say - I'd do the opposite, something like Java does.
Bit addressability is an interesting concept, though most hardware vendors would be hard-pressed to waste die space on that, and the gains you'd get out of it would be minimal on most cases.
Didn't the Sussman give a lecture recently that touched the subject of how cheap computing power is nowadays that we should move into new abstractions and paradings rather than caring for the internal workings and performance? Something touching machine propagators and the distributive computing