Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #41209
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? |
| Date | 2015-08-08 15:28 +0000 |
| Organization | Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien |
| Message-ID | <2015Aug8.172826@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> (permalink) |
| References | <f8ed0791-5c0a-4f70-aadf-d743eabfad68@googlegroups.com> <mq4lfp$uji$1@dont-email.me> |
Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>I've never really understood why the number of bits has to be a power of
>2. Early computers had all sorts of strange word widths. The first
>computer I worked with was 24 bits with 18 bit addresses.
If you want a byte-addressed machine, then the following should hold:
Bits-per-word = 2^n * Bits-per-byte
That makes address computations easier. Now, with the compiuter
industry having standardized the 8-bit byte, this results in
power-of-two word widths.
Of course, if you do a word-addressed machine like the early
computers, you can use pretty much any word width. E.g., Chuck Moore
used IIRC 20 bits on the MuP21, and 18 bits on his more recent work.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2015: http://www.mpeforth.com/euroforth2015/euroforth2015.htm
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? mfanyikazi@gmail.com - 2015-08-07 09:44 -0700
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-07 10:13 -0700
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 13:21 -0400
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-07 10:24 -0700
Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 16:59 -0700
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 01:11 -0400
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-08 01:38 -0400
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 23:42 -0700
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-08-08 19:41 +0200
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-08-07 23:03 -1000
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? mhx@iae.nl - 2015-08-08 02:31 -0700
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-08-08 11:27 +0100
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-08-08 15:28 +0000
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-09 03:24 -0400
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? mfanyikazi@gmail.com - 2015-08-09 01:59 -0700
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 15:15 -0400
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 13:55 -0700
csiph-web