Re: 64-bit bytes

From	Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.programming
Subject	Re: 64-bit bytes
Date	2015-01-12 14:15 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<87lhl8t7a2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <y9Msw.578728$RM2.35041@fx43.am4> <srOsw.570775$9b1.159484@fx05.am4> <RGOsw.496550$lM6.489669@fx22.am4> <y%Osw.742376$MH.437411@fx12.am4> <874mrwmazc.fsf@ixod.org>

Show all headers | View raw

Mark Carroll <mtbc@bcs.org> writes:

> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> On 12/01/2015 11:59, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> (snip)
>>> and (b) hampers our ability to describe alternative computer architectures.
>>> What advantage does this restriction give us that compensates for the loss
>>> of flexibility?
>>
>> We already have 'word' for that, where you generally need to qualify its 
>> size, outside of a specific context such as a language.
> (snip)
>
> Exactly. For instance, Erlang, being designed to run on various odd
> computer architectures, lets one ask,
>
> 	erlang:system_info(wordsize)
>
> which is documented as,
>
> ] Returns the size of Erlang term words in bytes as an integer, i.e. on
> ] a 32-bit architecture 4 is returned, and on a pure 64-bit architecture
> ] 8 is returned.
>
> which clearly implies 8-bit bytes.

I would not call 32-bit and 64-bit architectures "odd"!  What would it
do on a 36-bit or a 60-bit machine?

Not knowing anything about Erlang I'm curious about the need to make any
assumption about bytes at all.  Why does the function not return the
number of value bits?  Surely that's both more flexible an just as
useful?

-- 
Ben.

Thread

64-bit bytes fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 01:38 -0800
  Re: 64-bit bytes robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2015-01-08 00:46 -0800
    Re: 64-bit bytes fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-08 00:53 -0800
      Re: 64-bit bytes robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2015-01-11 15:46 -0800
        Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 00:32 +0000
          Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 01:35 +0000
            Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 09:07 +0000
              Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 11:43 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 11:59 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 12:21 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes Mark Carroll <mtbc@bcs.org> - 2015-01-12 12:36 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-12 14:15 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 14:34 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-01-12 16:35 +0100
                Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 17:42 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-01-12 19:11 +0100
                Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 19:18 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-01-12 21:34 +0100
                Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 22:01 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-13 00:51 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 13:18 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 14:16 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 14:48 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-12 15:05 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-12 15:43 -0600
              Re: 64-bit bytes Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-01-12 21:05 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 22:12 +0000
            Re: 64-bit bytes "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-01-12 10:12 +0100
          Re: 64-bit bytes robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2015-01-11 20:56 -0800
            Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 09:19 +0000
              Re: 64-bit bytes robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 06:22 -0800
                Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-12 14:51 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 15:46 -0800
                Re: 64-bit bytes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-13 01:16 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-13 01:53 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-13 13:28 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-13 13:57 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-01-13 15:32 +0100
                Re: 64-bit bytes fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 06:33 -0800
                Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-13 16:41 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 15:25 -0800
                Re: 64-bit bytes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-13 23:49 +0000
                Re: 64-bit bytes fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 23:57 -0800

csiph-web