Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #5122
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: 64-bit bytes |
| Message-ID | <pmf8bahs3hc93cegc1vcpmaf6sumo70vqe@4ax.com> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <RGOsw.496550$lM6.489669@fx22.am4> <y%Osw.742376$MH.437411@fx12.am4> <gQPsw.528585$gZ6.162597@fx40.am4> <mHQsw.502065$fX6.163191@fx26.am4> <D8Rsw.561175$812.167923@fx20.am4> |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2015-01-12 15:43 -0600 |
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:48:02 +0000, Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> wrote: >BartC wrote: > >> On 12/01/2015 13:18, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> BartC wrote: >>>> On 12/01/2015 11:59, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >>>>> 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, >>> >>> For a great many people, 'word' means exactly 16 bits (because that's how >>> Windows uses the term). So no, we don't already have 'word' for that. >> >> Huh? Now you're using the same argument for 'word' as I'm using for >> 'byte', and with much less justification. > >Actually, it's with the same justification - i.e. not very much. It is >indeed a weak argument, QED. > >> For those who are technical, 'word' generally relates to the bit-width >> of a particular machine, and know it might currently be 8, 16, 32 or 64 >> bits, that in the past it could have been anything, and in the future >> could also vary. It certainly isn't taken to mean exactly 16-bits >> outside of a specific context. >> >> For the general public, 'word' means just means a word of a natural >> language. > >And where does MS fit into that scheme? For them, 'word' means 16 bits. So >are MS people technical or not? It's not like MS is alone with illogically sized "words". It's happened many times at the ISA level, where the natural size of a "word" has changed over time, but the names were not changed. Consider DEC's PDP-11 /-> VAX -> Alpha path. "Words" were the natural (16 bit) size on the PDP-11s, but they chose to retain that nomanclature on the (32-bit) VAX and (64-bit) Alpha. So the natural size object on the Alpha was a quadword. IBM, having started with 32-bit "fullwords" on S/360 didn't get bitten by that issue until the 64-bit Z's, but again, those still have 32 bit fullwords. Intel and AMD, of course, have done the same thing with 16/32/64-bit versions of x86, and the same is true of of numerous other systems.
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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