Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch > #110102 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-11-28 15:31 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-12-22 21:37 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 115 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch
What is an N-bit machine? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-11-28 15:31 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-11-28 16:33 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-11-28 18:55 +0200
Re: What is an N-bit machine? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-11-30 02:37 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2024-11-29 22:30 -0800
Re: What is an N-bit machine? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-11-30 19:40 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-11-30 22:38 +0200
Re: What is an N-bit machine? "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2024-12-01 11:23 -0500
Re: What is an N-bit machine? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-12-01 19:52 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-11-30 22:39 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-12-01 08:19 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-12-01 08:35 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-12-02 09:48 +0100
Re: What is an N-bit machine? "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 19:56 -0500
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2024-12-03 00:01 -0800
Re: What is an N-bit machine? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2024-12-15 18:20 +0000
Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-11-30 06:28 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-11-30 11:35 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-11-30 11:58 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-11-30 16:57 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-11-30 19:32 +0200
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-11-30 18:08 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-11-30 20:28 +0200
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-12-01 09:28 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-12-01 14:03 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2024-12-01 08:15 -0600
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-12-01 14:40 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-12-04 02:19 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-12-04 03:25 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-01 07:32 -0800
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-12-01 17:53 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-01 20:05 +0200
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2024-12-01 18:16 -0500
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-01 20:02 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-31 08:54 -0800
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-01-01 15:28 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-01 17:39 -0800
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-01-02 09:59 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-08 10:00 -0800
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-01-08 19:18 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-27 17:05 -0800
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-28 08:30 +0100
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2025-02-02 08:37 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-12-02 17:10 +0100
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-31 08:46 -0800
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-11-30 19:12 +0000
What is an N-bit machine? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-12-01 08:41 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-12-01 15:52 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2024-12-16 22:39 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-11-30 22:06 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-12-01 08:38 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-11-30 17:57 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-12-01 09:38 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-01 15:22 -0800
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-12-02 01:26 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-01 20:12 -0800
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 16:54 -0800
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-12-03 11:51 -0500
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-12-03 18:19 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-12-03 13:46 -0500
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-12-03 23:33 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-12-03 18:52 -0500
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-12-04 02:36 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-12-04 06:29 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-12-04 10:32 -0500
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-12-04 19:47 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-12-04 15:47 -0800
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-12-04 16:31 +0000
Re: bytes, Keeping other stuff with addresses John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-12-05 00:39 +0000
unaligned load/store (was: Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses) Jonathan Thornburg <jonathan@gold.bkis-orchard.net> - 2024-12-21 23:22 +0000
Re: unaligned load/store mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-12-22 01:27 +0000
Re: unaligned load/store Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-12-22 10:01 +0000
Re: unaligned load/store anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-12-22 11:06 +0000
Re: unaligned load/store jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-12-22 11:42 +0000
Re: unaligned load/store "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-22 19:41 -0800
Re: unaligned load/store Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-12-22 21:04 +0000
Re: unaligned load/store mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-12-22 23:32 +0000
Re: unaligned load/store Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-12-26 13:38 -0500
Re: unaligned load/store George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2024-12-26 16:31 -0500
Re: unaligned load/store mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-12-26 21:59 +0000
Re: unaligned load/store "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-26 14:05 -0800
Re: unaligned load/store (was: Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-12-22 10:33 +0000
Re: bits and bytes, Keeping other stuff with addresses John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-12-04 03:39 +0000
Re: bits and bytes, Keeping other stuff with addresses Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-12-04 10:36 -0500
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-12-03 19:22 +0000
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 17:03 -0800
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 16:56 -0800
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-12-04 10:37 -0500
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 17:43 -0800
Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-12-04 02:42 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-11-28 17:56 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-11-28 19:02 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-11-28 19:39 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-28 21:42 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-11-28 22:08 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2024-11-28 12:44 -1000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-11-28 22:58 +0000
IBM and Amdahl history (Re: What is an N-bit machine?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-11-29 07:22 +0000
Re: IBM and Amdahl history (Re: What is an N-bit machine?) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2024-11-29 08:24 -1000
Re: IBM and Amdahl history (Re: What is an N-bit machine?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-11-29 18:29 +0000
Re: IBM and Amdahl history (Re: What is an N-bit machine?) Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2024-11-29 11:51 -1000
Re: IBM and Amdahl history (Re: What is an N-bit machine?) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-29 21:51 +0000
Re: IBM and Amdahl history (Re: What is an N-bit machine?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-11-30 17:45 +0000
Re: IBM and Amdahl history (Re: What is an N-bit machine?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-11-30 18:19 +0000
Re: IBM and Amdahl history (Re: What is an N-bit machine?) jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-11-30 22:19 +0000
Re: IBM and Amdahl history (Re: What is an N-bit machine?) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-30 23:21 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-29 02:17 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-11-30 01:29 +0000
Re: market power, What is an N-bit machine? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-11-30 02:42 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2024-11-29 17:42 -1000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-11-28 19:01 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2024-11-28 11:45 -1000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-11-29 08:03 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-11-29 19:17 +0000
Re: What is an N-bit machine? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-22 21:37 +0000
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-30 19:32 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) |
| Message-ID | <20241130193206.00005c49@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #110130 |
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 16:57:56 GMT anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: > >Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> schrieb: > >> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: > >>>John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes: > >>>>These days I'd say the relevant N is the size of arithmetic > >>>>registers but a lot of marketers appear to disagree with me. > >>> > >>>Which arithmetic registers on an Intel processor? The 64 bits of a > >>>GPR? The 128 bits of an XMM register? The 256 bits of a YMM > >>>register? The 512 bits of a ZMM register? > >> > >> The Cray-1 is even more interesting in that respect. Is it a > >> 4096-bit machine? > > > >If you consider the widest arithmetic it is capable of in one piece, > >it is a 64-bit machine. > > That's not John Levine's criterion. > > BTW, with your criterion, the Zen5 in the Ryzen AI 370HX is a 256-bit > machine, while the Zen5 in the Ryzen 9600X is a 512-bit machine. > According to John Levine's criterion they are both 512-bit machines. > According to me they are both 64-bit machines. John Levine's and my > criteria are architectural, yours is implementation-oriented. > > - anton John Levine said "arythmetic". Not logic, not move, not swizzle, not load/store. The widest arythmetic on Intel/AMD is 64 bits for inputs and 128 bits for output (integer multiplication). On IBM processors, both z and POWER, they have arithmetic instructions with 128-bit inputs. I think, on POWER some of them are even integer arithmetic. Not sure about z.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-30 18:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) |
| Message-ID | <2024Nov30.190858@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #110131 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 16:57:56 GMT >anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > >> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >> >Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> schrieb: >> >> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: >> >>>John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes: >> >>>>These days I'd say the relevant N is the size of arithmetic >> >>>>registers but a lot of marketers appear to disagree with me. ... >John Levine said "arythmetic". Not logic, not move, not swizzle, not >load/store. The widest arythmetic on Intel/AMD is 64 bits for inputs and >128 bits for output (integer multiplication). The widest arithmetic registers on AMD64 with AVX-512 are the ZMM registers with 512 bits each. Sure, they are used for arithmetic on a sequence of individually narrower data, but the registers have 512 bits nonetheless. - anton -- 'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.' Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-30 20:28 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) |
| Message-ID | <20241130202851.00005eca@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #110134 |
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 18:08:58 GMT anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > >On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 16:57:56 GMT > >anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > > > >> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: > >> >Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> schrieb: > >> >> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: > >> >>>John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes: > >> >>>>These days I'd say the relevant N is the size of arithmetic > >> >>>>registers but a lot of marketers appear to disagree with me. > >> >>>> > ... > >John Levine said "arythmetic". Not logic, not move, not swizzle, not > >load/store. The widest arythmetic on Intel/AMD is 64 bits for inputs > >and 128 bits for output (integer multiplication). > > The widest arithmetic registers on AMD64 with AVX-512 are the ZMM > registers with 512 bits each. Sure, they are used for arithmetic on a > sequence of individually narrower data, but the registers have 512 > bits nonetheless. > > - anton 8x64 is not the same as 512. You don't call 2-way superscalar 64-bit CPU 128-bit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-01 09:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) |
| Message-ID | <2024Dec1.102826@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #110135 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 18:08:58 GMT >anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >> The widest arithmetic registers on AMD64 with AVX-512 are the ZMM >> registers with 512 bits each. Sure, they are used for arithmetic on a >> sequence of individually narrower data, but the registers have 512 >> bits nonetheless. ... >8x64 is not the same as 512. Alternative facts? Anyway, the ZMM registers are used for arithmentic and are 512 bits wide; this just shows that "size of arithmetic registers" does not reflect what we usually mean with "N-bit", and John Levine has refined his criterion accordingly. >You don't call 2-way superscalar 64-bit CPU 128-bit. The "size of arithmetic registers" criterion would call the 21064 a 64-bit CPU. It's not my criterion, but it happens to agree with my criterion for this CPU. - anton -- 'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.' Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-01 14:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) |
| Message-ID | <vihqbd$2hnrp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110148 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> schrieb: > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >>On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 18:08:58 GMT >>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >>> The widest arithmetic registers on AMD64 with AVX-512 are the ZMM >>> registers with 512 bits each. Sure, they are used for arithmetic on a >>> sequence of individually narrower data, but the registers have 512 >>> bits nonetheless. > ... >>8x64 is not the same as 512. > > Alternative facts? You can do eight 64-bit additions in AVX-512, but you cannot do a 512-bit addition. I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable definition for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the 16-bit 68000. It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but see de Castro's remark on the latter).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-01 08:15 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses |
| Message-ID | <HvOcnRzirPYb8tH6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #110150 |
On 12/1/24 8:03 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote: > I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable definition > for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the 16-bit 68000. > It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but see de Castro's remark > on the latter). Or the CDP1802. 8 bit accumulator and 1 bit ALU. -- http://davesrocketworks.com David Schultz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-01 14:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses |
| Message-ID | <vihsh1$2i8uv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110151 |
David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> schrieb: > On 12/1/24 8:03 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote: >> I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable definition >> for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the 16-bit 68000. >> It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but see de Castro's remark >> on the latter). > Or the CDP1802. 8 bit accumulator and 1 bit ALU. Or the PDP-8/S...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-04 02:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses |
| Message-ID | <bfb05c521e44f13bc9719556e2e678ab@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #110152 |
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 14:40:33 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote: > David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> schrieb: >> On 12/1/24 8:03 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote: >>> I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable definition >>> for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the 16-bit 68000. >>> It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but see de Castro's remark >>> on the latter). >> Or the CDP1802. 8 bit accumulator and 1 bit ALU. > > Or the PDP-8/S... We who used a PDP-8S considered it a (slow) 12-bit machine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-04 03:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses |
| Message-ID | <vioi3l$2ods$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #110191 |
According to MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com>: >>> Or the CDP1802. 8 bit accumulator and 1 bit ALU. >> >> Or the PDP-8/S... > >We who used a PDP-8S considered it a (slow) 12-bit machine. It was clearly a 12 bit machine, just like a 360/30 was a 32 bit machine. Yeah, the internal implementations were narrower but that wasn't visible to the programmer beyond the slowness. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-01 07:32 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) |
| Message-ID | <86jzcjo1uw.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #110150 |
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: > I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable definition > for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the 16-bit 68000. > It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but see de Castro's remark > on the latter). To me, the phrase "n-bit architecture" should depend only on such characteristics as are defined by the architecture, and not depend on features of a particular implementation. The 360/30 has a 32-bit (or is it 64-bit?) architecture, but only an 8-bit implementation. If I may add a personal note, it's disappointing that postings in a group nominally devoted to computer architecture routinely ignore the distinction between architecture and implementation. I don't mind comments about matters of implementation, but the constant blurring (or erasing) of the line between architecture and implementation often makes it nearly impossible to have a discussion just about architecture.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-01 17:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) |
| Message-ID | <vii7qf$2m69k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110153 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: > Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: > >> I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable definition >> for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the 16-bit 68000. >> It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but see de Castro's remark >> on the latter). > > To me, the phrase "n-bit architecture" should depend only on such > characteristics as are defined by the architecture, and not depend > on features of a particular implementation. The 360/30 has a 32-bit > (or is it 64-bit?) architecture, but only an 8-bit implementation. > > If I may add a personal note, it's disappointing that postings in a > group nominally devoted to computer architecture routinely ignore > the distinction between architecture and implementation. I'm well aware of that distinction. On the other hand, I have right before me a book with the title "MC68000 16-BIT MICROPROCESSOR User's manual third edition", ISBN 0-13-566695-3 (in paperback). One may argue that the authors of that book didn't know what they were writing about (since the 68000 has a 32-bit ISA), but I would try to define the terms in such a way that this is also included.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-01 20:05 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) |
| Message-ID | <20241201200511.0000165f@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #110156 |
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 17:53:19 -0000 (UTC) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: > > Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: > > > >> I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable > >> definition for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the 16-bit > >> 68000. It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but see de > >> Castro's remark on the latter). > > > > To me, the phrase "n-bit architecture" should depend only on such > > characteristics as are defined by the architecture, and not depend > > on features of a particular implementation. The 360/30 has a 32-bit > > (or is it 64-bit?) architecture, but only an 8-bit implementation. > > > > If I may add a personal note, it's disappointing that postings in a > > group nominally devoted to computer architecture routinely ignore > > the distinction between architecture and implementation. > > I'm well aware of that distinction. > > On the other hand, I have right before me a book with the title > "MC68000 16-BIT MICROPROCESSOR User's manual third edition", ISBN > 0-13-566695-3 (in paperback). One may argue that the authors > of that book didn't know what they were writing about (since the > 68000 has a 32-bit ISA), but I would try to define the terms in > such a way that this is also included. IMHO, the authors of the book are wrong. At least as long as were are talking about current meaning of the bitness. It is possible that 40 years ago the word had different meaning. But I find more likely that it had no established meaning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-01 18:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses |
| Message-ID | <_663P.8565$nZ5.3920@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #110157 |
Michael S wrote: > On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 17:53:19 -0000 (UTC) > Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote: > >> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: >>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >>> >>>> I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable >>>> definition for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the 16-bit >>>> 68000. It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but see de >>>> Castro's remark on the latter). >>> To me, the phrase "n-bit architecture" should depend only on such >>> characteristics as are defined by the architecture, and not depend >>> on features of a particular implementation. The 360/30 has a 32-bit >>> (or is it 64-bit?) architecture, but only an 8-bit implementation. >>> >>> If I may add a personal note, it's disappointing that postings in a >>> group nominally devoted to computer architecture routinely ignore >>> the distinction between architecture and implementation. >> I'm well aware of that distinction. >> >> On the other hand, I have right before me a book with the title >> "MC68000 16-BIT MICROPROCESSOR User's manual third edition", ISBN >> 0-13-566695-3 (in paperback). One may argue that the authors >> of that book didn't know what they were writing about (since the >> 68000 has a 32-bit ISA), but I would try to define the terms in >> such a way that this is also included. > > IMHO, the authors of the book are wrong. At least as long as were are > talking about current meaning of the bitness. It is possible that 40 > years ago the word had different meaning. But I find more likely that > it had no established meaning. This 1983 Byte article shows what Motorola were thinking at the time. Design Philosophy Behind Motorola's MC68000, Apr 1983, BYTE Thomas W. Starnes Motorola Inc., Microprocessor Division http://www.easy68k.com/paulrsm/doc/dpbm68k1.htm "Many criteria can qualify a processor as an 8-, 16-, or 32-bit device. A manufacturer might base its label on the width of the data bus, address bus, data sizes, internal data paths, arithmetic and logic unit (ALU), and/or fundamental operation code (op code). Generally, the data-bus size has determined the processor size, though perhaps the best choice would be based on the size of the op code. I'll talk a bit about these features and then show how the MC68000 is both a 16- and 32-bit microprocessor. ... ... Conclusion Let's look back now at the MC68000 and see what parts of it might qualify it as a 16-bit device. The internal data ALU is 16 bits. It processes 32-bit addresses, though only 24 bits are brought off chip. The op code that tells the processor what operation to perform is 16 bits wide. The data bus is 16 bits wide. The microprocessor will operate on either 8, 16, or 32 bits of data automatically. There are 16 general-purpose 32-bit-wide registers in the chip. The MC68000 is generally considered a 16-bit microprocessor, though it uses 32-bit addresses and contains 32-bit registers. It also can operate on 32 bits of data as easily as 8 and 16. Many users of the MC68000 consider it a 32-bit just as much as a 16-bit processor." He doesn't mention that internally it has two 16-bit buses, one for address high & low, one for data high & low, plus two 16-bit arithmetic units for address calculations, plus one 16-bit arithmetic logic unit for data calculations. A 32-bit address calculation can be performed in one cycle concurrent with a 16-bit data calculation, or two cycles for a 32-bit data calculation. Note also that according to the Oral History of the 68000, when the 68000 was announced in 1978 they viewed their primary competition to be the 16-bit 8086 and Z8000. They also needed more that 16 address lines so 32 was most natural. Oral History Panel on the Development and Promotion of the Motorola 68000 https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2012/04/102658164-05-01-acc.pdf I call it a 32-bit architecture because that is its integer and address register size and it operates on up to 32-bit integer data types in a single instruction. (The 16-bit size of the instruction granules is a red herring as instructions take a variable number of granules.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-01 20:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) |
| Message-ID | <viifdc$2otlg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110156 |
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: >> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >> >>> I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable definition >>> for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the 16-bit 68000. >>> It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but see de Castro's remark >>> on the latter). >> >> To me, the phrase "n-bit architecture" should depend only on such >> characteristics as are defined by the architecture, and not depend >> on features of a particular implementation. The 360/30 has a 32-bit >> (or is it 64-bit?) architecture, but only an 8-bit implementation. >> >> If I may add a personal note, it's disappointing that postings in a >> group nominally devoted to computer architecture routinely ignore >> the distinction between architecture and implementation. > > I'm well aware of that distinction. > > On the other hand, I have right before me a book with the title > "MC68000 16-BIT MICROPROCESSOR User's manual third edition", ISBN > 0-13-566695-3 (in paperback). One may argue that the authors > of that book didn't know what they were writing about (since the > 68000 has a 32-bit ISA), but I would try to define the terms in > such a way that this is also included. Marketing. At the time only mini-computers were 32 bit, which only shipped tens of thousands of computers for tens of thousands of dollars each. I bought one of the first Macintosh’s which had 128k, which was clearly an inadequate amount of RAM. I looked at building building a fat Mac with 512k by desoldering the 16 DRAM’s, but those chips at higher density cost $1,000 at the time, half the cost of the Mac. Took time for DRAM costs to drop, my next machine was MacPlus with 1 megabyte. Motorola was going for mass market, and mass market could not afford to fill more than 16 bits of address space. Macintosh was not mass market.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-31 08:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) |
| Message-ID | <86zfkbaj3n.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #110156 |
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: > >> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >> >>> I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable definition >>> for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the 16-bit 68000. >>> It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but see de Castro's remark >>> on the latter). >> >> To me, the phrase "n-bit architecture" should depend only on such >> characteristics as are defined by the architecture, and not depend >> on features of a particular implementation. The 360/30 has a 32-bit >> (or is it 64-bit?) architecture, but only an 8-bit implementation. >> >> If I may add a personal note, it's disappointing that postings in a >> group nominally devoted to computer architecture routinely ignore >> the distinction between architecture and implementation. > > I'm well aware of that distinction. I expect most of the folks who participate in comp.arch are aware of the distinction. What I find disappointing are postings that ignore or blur the distinction, so it's hard to tell where one domain ends and the other begins.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 15:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) |
| Message-ID | <vl3mut$2r4a2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110350 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: > Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: > >> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: >> >>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >>> >>>> I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable definition >>>> for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the 16-bit 68000. >>>> It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but see de Castro's remark >>>> on the latter). >>> >>> To me, the phrase "n-bit architecture" should depend only on such >>> characteristics as are defined by the architecture, and not depend >>> on features of a particular implementation. The 360/30 has a 32-bit >>> (or is it 64-bit?) architecture, but only an 8-bit implementation. >>> >>> If I may add a personal note, it's disappointing that postings in a >>> group nominally devoted to computer architecture routinely ignore >>> the distinction between architecture and implementation. >> >> I'm well aware of that distinction. > > I expect most of the folks who participate in comp.arch are > aware of the distinction. What I find disappointing are > postings that ignore or blur the distinction, so it's hard > to tell where one domain ends and the other begins. If you find discussions about how certain times were used in the past disappointing... well, OK.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 17:39 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) |
| Message-ID | <86v7uy9epq.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #110353 |
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: > >> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >> >>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: >>> >>>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >>>> >>>>> I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable definition >>>>> for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the 16-bit 68000. >>>>> It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but see de Castro's remark >>>>> on the latter). >>>> >>>> To me, the phrase "n-bit architecture" should depend only on such >>>> characteristics as are defined by the architecture, and not depend >>>> on features of a particular implementation. The 360/30 has a 32-bit >>>> (or is it 64-bit?) architecture, but only an 8-bit implementation. >>>> >>>> If I may add a personal note, it's disappointing that postings in a >>>> group nominally devoted to computer architecture routinely ignore >>>> the distinction between architecture and implementation. >>> >>> I'm well aware of that distinction. >> >> I expect most of the folks who participate in comp.arch are >> aware of the distinction. What I find disappointing are >> postings that ignore or blur the distinction, so it's hard >> to tell where one domain ends and the other begins. > > If you find discussions about how certain times were used > in the past disappointing... [..] That isn't what I said, nor was it what I meant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 09:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) |
| Message-ID | <vl5o24$39nmu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110354 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: > Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: > >> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: >> >>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >>> >>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: >>>> >>>>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable definition >>>>>> for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the 16-bit 68000. >>>>>> It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but see de Castro's remark >>>>>> on the latter). >>>>> >>>>> To me, the phrase "n-bit architecture" should depend only on such >>>>> characteristics as are defined by the architecture, and not depend >>>>> on features of a particular implementation. The 360/30 has a 32-bit >>>>> (or is it 64-bit?) architecture, but only an 8-bit implementation. >>>>> >>>>> If I may add a personal note, it's disappointing that postings in a >>>>> group nominally devoted to computer architecture routinely ignore >>>>> the distinction between architecture and implementation. >>>> >>>> I'm well aware of that distinction. >>> >>> I expect most of the folks who participate in comp.arch are >>> aware of the distinction. What I find disappointing are >>> postings that ignore or blur the distinction, so it's hard >>> to tell where one domain ends and the other begins. >> >> If you find discussions about how certain times were used >> in the past disappointing... [..] > > That isn't what I said, nor was it what I meant. If it walks like a duck...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-08 10:00 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) |
| Message-ID | <86wmf589uc.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #110355 |
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: > >> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >> >>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: >>> >>>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >>>> >>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: >>>>> >>>>>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable >>>>>>> definition for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the >>>>>>> 16-bit 68000. It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but >>>>>>> see de Castro's remark on the latter). >>>>>> >>>>>> To me, the phrase "n-bit architecture" should depend only on >>>>>> such characteristics as are defined by the architecture, and >>>>>> not depend on features of a particular implementation. The >>>>>> 360/30 has a 32-bit (or is it 64-bit?) architecture, but only >>>>>> an 8-bit implementation. >>>>>> >>>>>> If I may add a personal note, it's disappointing that postings >>>>>> in a group nominally devoted to computer architecture routinely >>>>>> ignore the distinction between architecture and implementation. >>>>> >>>>> I'm well aware of that distinction. >>>> >>>> I expect most of the folks who participate in comp.arch are >>>> aware of the distinction. What I find disappointing are >>>> postings that ignore or blur the distinction, so it's hard >>>> to tell where one domain ends and the other begins. >>> >>> If you find discussions about how certain times were used >>> in the past disappointing... [..] >> >> That isn't what I said, nor was it what I meant. > > If it walks like a duck... That is nothing but a gratuitous personal insult. Why do you engage in such conduct?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-08 19:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?) |
| Message-ID | <vlmj2g$2tusc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110447 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: > Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: > >> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: >> >>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >>> >>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: >>>> >>>>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable >>>>>>>> definition for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the >>>>>>>> 16-bit 68000. It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but >>>>>>>> see de Castro's remark on the latter). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To me, the phrase "n-bit architecture" should depend only on >>>>>>> such characteristics as are defined by the architecture, and >>>>>>> not depend on features of a particular implementation. The >>>>>>> 360/30 has a 32-bit (or is it 64-bit?) architecture, but only >>>>>>> an 8-bit implementation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I may add a personal note, it's disappointing that postings >>>>>>> in a group nominally devoted to computer architecture routinely >>>>>>> ignore the distinction between architecture and implementation. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm well aware of that distinction. >>>>> >>>>> I expect most of the folks who participate in comp.arch are >>>>> aware of the distinction. What I find disappointing are >>>>> postings that ignore or blur the distinction, so it's hard >>>>> to tell where one domain ends and the other begins. >>>> >>>> If you find discussions about how certain times were used >>>> in the past disappointing... [..] >>> >>> That isn't what I said, nor was it what I meant. >> >> If it walks like a duck... > > That is nothing but a gratuitous personal insult. Why do you > engage in such conduct? You quoted what I wrote out of context, and then expressed your disappointment at what I wrote. I restored the context, and you said you didn't mean what you had said. And I find no insult in what I wrote, but as you are a native speaker, you may find something in there that I didn't put in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch
csiph-web