Re: [OT] programming

From	Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: [OT] programming
Date	2015-10-09 09:31 -0700
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<lnoag8f1gv.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <mv6ss4$t36$1@dont-email.me> <mv6tje$v5v$1@dont-email.me> <mv6v8u$41p$1@dont-email.me> <lnegh4hno2.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <mv7uah$hb8$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 09/10/15 02:48, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]         
>> (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.)
>
> DSP's usually have /lots/ of communication via octet-oriented channels,
> such as UARTs, SPI, Ethernet, etc.  And working with them is a PITA
> because they can't deal with 8-bit data directly.

I think you just answered the question I asked a moment ago.
I probably should have read the whole thread first.

Still, I suspect that most of the system's work involves 32-bit
quantities, and making CHAR_BIT==8, though it would amke the
octet-oriented tasks easier, might slow down it's main job.

This is almost pure speculation; I've never programmed for a DSP.
But I would guess that if optimizing octet-oriented processing were
a priority, it would have been supported by the hardware.

-- 
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"

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