From: Bruno Sousa on 18 May 2010 21:34 Since when does 64bit ruby interpreter exists? Last year I didn't find those. Were they recently developed?  Posted via http://www.rubyforum.com/.
From: Simone D'Amico on 19 May 2010 04:15 It was 64 bit since you have the possibility to build it from source :) Simone D'Amico Il giorno 19/mag/2010, alle ore 03.34, Bruno Sousa <brgsousa(a)gmail.com> ha scritto: > Since when does 64bit ruby interpreter exists? > Last year I didn't find those. Were they recently developed? >  > Posted via http://www.rubyforum.com/. >
From: Bruno Sousa on 19 May 2010 12:28 Thanks! That's so much clear now :)  Posted via http://www.rubyforum.com/.
From: Michal Suchanek on 19 May 2010 10:48 On 19 May 2010 16:31, Michal Suchanek <hramrach(a)centrum.cz> wrote: > On 19 May 2010 15:21, Bruno Sousa <brgsousa(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Ops :P >> >> Simone, did you noticed a performance improvement? >> > > I can say I noticed improvement in the amount of available memory. > > 32bit systems typically allow mapping only up to 2G of ram to a single process. > Also you will notice that 64bit systems can do integer arithmetics on larger range of numbers. If you did lots of integer calculations with numbers in the range 10737418242305843009213693952 you would notice a speed improvement I guess because fixnums are much faster than bignums. You would likely not notice a difference unless you need lots of memory or you do lots of integer math in the range which requires 3062 bits to represent. n=1 ; (1..64).each { STDOUT << n << " " << n.class << "\n" ; n = n*2 } 1 Fixnum 2 Fixnum 4 Fixnum 8 Fixnum 16 Fixnum ... 268435456 Fixnum 536870912 Fixnum 1073741824 Bignum 2147483648 Bignum ... on a 32 bit system and 1 Fixnum 2 Fixnum 4 Fixnum 8 Fixnum 16 Fixnum ... 1152921504606846976 Fixnum 2305843009213693952 Fixnum 4611686018427387904 Bignum 9223372036854775808 Bignum on a 64bit system.
From: Caleb Clausen on 19 May 2010 13:19 On 5/19/10, Michal Suchanek <hramrach(a)centrum.cz> wrote: > Also you will notice that 64bit systems can do integer arithmetics on > larger range of numbers. > > If you did lots of integer calculations with numbers in the range > 10737418242305843009213693952 you would notice a speed improvement I > guess because fixnums are much faster than bignums. > > You would likely not notice a difference unless you need lots of > memory or you do lots of integer math in the range which requires > 3062 bits to represent. Integer math on even larger integers should be roughly twice as fast too. You should also notice that your processes now use somewhat more memory, principally because all pointers are now twice as large. Also, most things (besides large integer math) will be a little bit slower; many memory operations are now performed on words that are twice as large and it takes twice as long to move the data in and out of memory.

Next

Last
Pages: 1 2 Prev: [ANN] Ruby/TkKit for RubyInstaller 1.9.1p378rc2 Next: Write whitespace to a file 