Re: [Alleg5] 64-bit processors

[Chris <kc...@st...>]

Grim I. Låget wrote:

>What you would want to ask is, will there be a 
>64-bit processor in 5 or 10 years from now that will support the x86 
>instruction set.
>

Actually, I thought I heard AMD's would be 32-bit x86 compatible right 
from the start, as long as it's in 32-bit mode (ie. in a 32-bit-only 
OS). A 64-bit OS with 32-bit compatibility is probably a bit more iffy 
as to whether it'll actually work or not, although it's supposed to. I'd 
tend to think it'll be along the lines of 16-bit compatibility in 32-bit 
mode, for current 32-bit CPUs.

>Well, today we have the opteron, Athlon64 and others from AMD 
>but who says that it will be that way in 5 years from now. Experience tells us 
>that we will have 64-bit processors, but rumours (old ones yes, but I have 
>seen nothing to make me thing otherwhise yet) tell me that Intel (at least) 
>will drop back-wards compatibility with the x86 instruction set
>

Intel was originally going to do this, but from what I heard, Microsoft 
told them no, or else you can forget about Windows compatiblity. MS is 
going with AMD's x86-extended set, as opposed to Intel's all-new set, 
which would lead me to believe Intel's turning around and using an 
x86-extended set themselves.

>Regardless of the processor I don't think it will have a major impact on the C 
>(java, c++. basic - you name it) language or Allegro 5, 6 or any other version 
>- be that 32, 64 or 128 bit processors, as long as there is a port to the new 
>processor and the os' that run on them.
>

As far as I can tell, the only difference for C/C++ code will be the 
size of a few integer types. And even there, I believe there's int32_t, 
int16_t, int8_t, ect if you need a specific size (you just need to 
include a header for them, though).

- Kitty Cat