Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #72233

Re: [OT] programming

Show key headers only | View raw

Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 09/10/2015 00:20, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 09/10/15 00:07, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>>> "Richard Heathfield" <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:mv2muo$m6o$1@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> But
>>>> that assumes there are 8 bits in a byte. On most systems that's true,
>>>> but
>>>> at least one 32-bit byte platform does exist, so maybe we need to cater
>>>> for that.
>>>
>>>      What would that be?
>>
>> Analog Devices introduced the SHARC digital signal processor some time
>> in the mid-1990s (IIRC). It has a 32-bit byte. That is, the smallest
>> addressable unit is 32 bits wide.
>
> That doesn't make a byte 32 bits. Any more than a machine having a 
> bit-addressable memory would have 1-bit bytes.

True, but it would probably be reasonable for a C implementation for
that DSP to have CHAR_BIT==32.  (It might also be reasonable to have
CHAR_BIT==8 if it needs to communicate with octet-oriented systems, but
as I understand it DSPs typically don't need to do that kind of thing.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[OT] programming asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-10-07 00:37 -0700
  Re: [OT] programming mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2015-10-07 00:49 -0700
    Re: [OT] programming asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-10-07 01:06 -0700
      Re: [OT] programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-07 10:02 +0100
        Re: [OT] programming Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-07 02:18 -0700
        Re: [OT] programming "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-10-08 19:07 -0400
          Re: [OT] programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-09 00:20 +0100
            Re: [OT] programming Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-09 00:48 +0100
              Re: [OT] programming Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-08 17:48 -0700
                Re: [OT] programming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-09 10:38 +0200
                Re: [OT] programming Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-09 09:31 -0700
                Re: [OT] programming Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-10-09 08:34 -0400
                Re: [OT] programming Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-09 12:05 -0700
              Re: [OT] programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-09 08:28 +0100
                Re: [OT] programming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-09 10:50 +0200
                Re: [OT] programming Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-09 09:26 -0700
                Re: [OT] programming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-11 20:30 +0200
                Re: [OT] programming Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-11 12:09 -0700
                Re: [OT] programming Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-09 10:40 +0100
                Re: [OT] programming Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-09 09:23 -0700
                Re: [OT] programming Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-09 17:35 +0100
                Re: [OT] programming Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-09 22:50 -0700
            Re: [OT] programming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-09 10:34 +0200
          Re: [OT] programming glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-09 00:20 +0000
      Re: [OT] programming "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 09:37 -0700

csiph-web