64 bit WebPack

Will there be a 64 bit WebPack version of ISE in the near future?

Rog. 

Roger wrote:
> Will there be a 64 bit WebPack version of ISE in the near future?

Is it really necessary?  WebPack doesn't support parts large enough
to exhaust the memory avialable in the 32-bit world.

Eric Smith wrote:
> Roger wrote:
>> Will there be a 64 bit WebPack version of ISE in the near future?
> 
> Is it really necessary?  WebPack doesn't support parts large enough
> to exhaust the memory avialable in the 32-bit world.

Processors using the amd64 ISA have a number of advantages other than 
just access to larger amounts of memory.  They've got more general 
purpose registers, 64-bit arithmetic, and slightly less legacy baggage. 
  So for some tasks, a program compiled for 64-bit windows/*nix will run 
noticeably faster than one compiled for 32-bit mode - even if it does 
not use much memory.  I have no idea if that applies to ISE, however.

ISE on 64 bit Windows runs quite a bit slower and uses more memory than the 
32 bit executables. That's why we now install the 32bit executables together 
with the 64bit executables on a 64bit system.

However, 64bit Linux runs slightly faster than 32bit Linux.

Steve

"David Brown" <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message 
news:4803021c$0$14994$8404b019@news.wineasy.se...
> Eric Smith wrote:
>> Roger wrote:
>>> Will there be a 64 bit WebPack version of ISE in the near future?
>>
>> Is it really necessary?  WebPack doesn't support parts large enough
>> to exhaust the memory avialable in the 32-bit world.
>
> Processors using the amd64 ISA have a number of advantages other than just 
> access to larger amounts of memory.  They've got more general purpose 
> registers, 64-bit arithmetic, and slightly less legacy baggage. So for 
> some tasks, a program compiled for 64-bit windows/*nix will run noticeably 
> faster than one compiled for 32-bit mode - even if it does not use much 
> memory.  I have no idea if that applies to ISE, however. 

I wrote:
> Is it really necessary?  WebPack doesn't support parts large enough
> to exhaust the memory avialable in the 32-bit world.

David Brown wrote:
> Processors using the amd64 ISA have a number of advantages other than
> just access to larger amounts of memory.  They've got more general
> purpose registers, 64-bit arithmetic, and slightly less legacy
> baggage. So for some tasks, a program compiled for 64-bit windows/*nix
> will run noticeably faster than one compiled for 32-bit mode - even if
> it does not use much memory.  I have no idea if that applies to ISE,
> however.

I would say "measurably faster" rather than "noticeably faster".  But I
would still claim that it makes little difference for WebPACK.  The 32-bit
version should be fine for all the supported devices.

steve.lass@xilinx.com wrote:
> ISE on 64 bit Windows runs quite a bit slower and uses more memory than the 
> 32 bit executables. That's why we now install the 32bit executables together 
> with the 64bit executables on a 64bit system.
> 
> However, 64bit Linux runs slightly faster than 32bit Linux.
> 

That's interesting - I wonder if it is related to the different 64-bit 
models used by windows and linux (windows uses 32-bit int and long, with 
only 64-bit for pointers, while linux has 32-bit int and 64-bit long). 
If the ISE code takes advantage of 64-bit longs on linux, but does not 
use the equivalent "long long" or "__int64" type on windows, then that 
might explain the difference (64-bit pointers are often slower than 
32-bit pointers, so that a pointer-heavy 64-bit executable might be 
slower than a 32-bit version).

Thanks for the comments in response to my initial query. It sounds like 
there won't be a 64 bit Webpack - which is a shame as the devices covered by 
it are sufficient for my work and I've got a PC with Vista 64 bit on it!

Rog.

"Roger" <rogerwilson@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:Yv-dneipyM86-GLaRVnyjwA@plusnet...
> Will there be a 64 bit WebPack version of ISE in the near future?
>
> Rog. 

Roger <rogerwilson@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the comments in response to my initial query. It sounds like 
> there won't be a 64 bit Webpack - which is a shame as the devices covered by 
> it are sufficient for my work and I've got a PC with Vista 64 bit on it!

It's unfortunate that so many people seem to have have this feeling
that 64-bit programs are better than 32-bit programs in all cases :P

Of course it's also unfortunate that Windows does not support an ILP32
memory model that would utilize the other AMD extensions to the x86
architecure such as the additional registers and register widths.

G.

Roger wrote:
> It sounds like there won't be a 64 bit Webpack - which is a shame as the
> devices covered by it are sufficient for my work and I've got a PC with
> Vista 64 bit on it!

Won't the 32-bit WebPACK run on that?

On Linux, 32-bit software generally runs fine on 64-bit kernels.

What I read on the Web site seems to say it won't. I admit I haven't tried 
though. Does anyone know to save me the hassle?

Rog.

"Eric Smith" <eric@brouhaha.com> wrote in message 
news:m33apmvgr4.fsf@donnybrook.brouhaha.com...
> Roger wrote:
>> It sounds like there won't be a 64 bit Webpack - which is a shame as the
>> devices covered by it are sufficient for my work and I've got a PC with
>> Vista 64 bit on it!
>
> Won't the 32-bit WebPACK run on that?
>
> On Linux, 32-bit software generally runs fine on 64-bit kernels.