▲ 276 ▼ Why we don't have 128-bit CPUs (www.xda-developers.com) submitted 2 years ago by jwr1@kbin.earth to c/technology@lemmy.world 117 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] just_another_person@lemmy.world -66 points 2 years ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] MrQuallzin@lemmy.world 61 points 2 years ago I think they were just adding to the conversation permalink fedilink source parent [–] Technus@lemmy.zip 36 points 2 years ago (1 child) I actually added detail that wasn't already discussed in the article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AlphaAutist@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (1 child) I actually didn’t know that about addressing before your comment and so I found it very interesting, thanks permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Technus@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago Some applications use those unused bits to add tags to pointers but it's important to mask those out before attempting to dereference the address. I'm not sure about ARM but x86-64 requires bits 49-63 to be copies of bit 48 (kinda like sign-extension), ironically to ensure that no one is using those bits to store extra data. permalink fedilink source parent [+] b34k@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] just_another_person@lemmy.world -54 points 2 years ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Technus@lemmy.zip 28 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] mohammed_alibi@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xyz1195@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago that was a nice chuckle.ty permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MrQuallzin@lemmy.world 61 points 2 years ago I think they were just adding to the conversation permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Technus@lemmy.zip 36 points 2 years ago (1 child) I actually added detail that wasn't already discussed in the article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AlphaAutist@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (1 child) I actually didn’t know that about addressing before your comment and so I found it very interesting, thanks permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Technus@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago Some applications use those unused bits to add tags to pointers but it's important to mask those out before attempting to dereference the address. I'm not sure about ARM but x86-64 requires bits 49-63 to be copies of bit 48 (kinda like sign-extension), ironically to ensure that no one is using those bits to store extra data. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AlphaAutist@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (1 child) I actually didn’t know that about addressing before your comment and so I found it very interesting, thanks permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Technus@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago Some applications use those unused bits to add tags to pointers but it's important to mask those out before attempting to dereference the address. I'm not sure about ARM but x86-64 requires bits 49-63 to be copies of bit 48 (kinda like sign-extension), ironically to ensure that no one is using those bits to store extra data. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Technus@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago Some applications use those unused bits to add tags to pointers but it's important to mask those out before attempting to dereference the address. I'm not sure about ARM but x86-64 requires bits 49-63 to be copies of bit 48 (kinda like sign-extension), ironically to ensure that no one is using those bits to store extra data. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] b34k@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] just_another_person@lemmy.world -54 points 2 years ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Technus@lemmy.zip 28 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] mohammed_alibi@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xyz1195@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago that was a nice chuckle.ty permalink fedilink source parent
[+] just_another_person@lemmy.world -54 points 2 years ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Technus@lemmy.zip 28 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] mohammed_alibi@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xyz1195@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago that was a nice chuckle.ty permalink fedilink source parent
[+] mohammed_alibi@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xyz1195@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago that was a nice chuckle.ty permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xyz1195@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago that was a nice chuckle.ty permalink fedilink source parent