Re: Fat references

anton@a4.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:57:25 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[18 earlier articles]
Re: Fat references anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2010-01-03)
Re: Fat references gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2010-01-03)
Re: Fat references jon@ffconsultancy.com (Jon Harrop) (2010-01-04)
Re: Fat references kkylheku@gmail.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2010-01-04)
Re: Fat references cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB / cr88192) (2010-01-03)
Re: Fat references bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2010-01-04)
Re: Fat references anton@a4.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2010-01-04)
Re: Fat references kkylheku@gmail.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2010-01-04)
Re: Fat references jon@ffconsultancy.com (Jon Harrop) (2010-01-05)
Re: Fat references dmr@bell-labs.com (Dennis Ritchie) (2010-01-05)
Re: Fat references kkylheku@gmail.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2010-01-05)
Re: Fat references cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB / cr88192) (2010-01-05)
Re: Fat references jon@ffconsultancy.com (Jon Harrop) (2010-01-06)
[4 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: anton@a4.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.arch
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:57:25 GMT
Organization: Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
References: 09-12-045 09-12-055 10-01-003 10-01-008 10-01-009 10-01-016 10-01-019
Keywords: architecture, history
Posted-Date: 05 Jan 2010 13:33:48 EST

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
>In comp.compilers Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Yes, 16 bits were called a word on such 8-bit processors (there was
>> another name for 8-bit units: byte), and it was commonly needed,
>> because these machines used 16 bits for addressing their 64KB address
>> space.
>
>But not quadword and octoword.


Sure, but once they had used "word" for 16 bits, they apparently had
no fantasy left for names of larger units (hmm: phrase, sentence,
paragraph; at least "line" and "page" are used:-).


>> But it also was marketed as a successor to the PDP-11, with various
>> compatibility features. And apparently it's important to keep "word"
>> the same size when doing such successions, and so 16 bits are still
>> called a word even in the Alpha architecture.
>
>It is also important to show the technology advances. VAX was
>supposed to be DEC's entry to the 32 bit world. Keeping the word size
>at 16 bits dilutes the effect.


It's just a name. I would prefer to use the natural word size for
"word" (i.e., 64 bits on Alpha and AMD64). But I guess there are
groups of people who reuse stuff from the smaller machines on the
bigger ones, and if the width of a "word" changed between the
architectures, interpreting documentation for such things would become
confusing ("Does this documentation mean a PDP-11 word, a VAX word, or
an Alpha word in this place?"), so every manufacturer decided to avoid
changing the number of bits in a "word" even if that meant that a
"word" was smaller than a natural machine word.


>I do remember that in early Alpha C compilers a C (long) was 64 bits,
>but later changed to 32 bits with (long long) as the 64 bit type.


C's long int type is 64-bits on Alpha (and other 64-bit architectures)
on Unix, and AFAIK 32-bits on Windows (even 64-bit Windows), with
64-bit long long int on both. I don't think you get Windows for Alpha
anymore.


- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/



Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.