Re: [boost] Build breaking changes

Subject: Re: [boost] Build breaking changes
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-03-29 09:45:58

On 03/29/18 05:51, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Andrey Semashev via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> If someone wants to target an outdated architecture (and 32-bit x86 really is
>> a separate architecture, including hardware features and software ABI) then
>> let them do that with a little more effort. The rest of the world have moved to 64 bits
>> long ago, and that is what we should target by default, IMO.
> 
> No they have not all "moved on to 64 bits." Most programs work
> perfectly fine as 32-bit applications and have no need for the ability
> to access a full 64-bit address space. In fact many programs perform
> objectively worse as 64-bit application since pointers and data
> structures become larger without a corresponding benefit. This is
> especially true for mobile applications.

Memory is cheap and the increase from the pointer size is not 
significant[1]. Although x86 is not really relevant in that area, even 
mainstream smartphones now have 3+ GiB of RAM. Laptops come with more 
than 4. The x32[2] initiative didn't really take off[3] because the 
benefits from reducing pointers to 32 bits are not significant enough.

I really don't understand why people cling to the old x86 while the bits 
of silicon and associated performance lie wasted in their CPUs.

[1]: https://youtu.be/nLOXwRhOhWY?t=410 - before that time there are 
performance comparisons
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI
[3]: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTU1MjE