Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!shelby!neon!news
From: andy@Theory.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: 64 bits, but for what?
Message-ID: <1990Aug13.065744.13208@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 13 Aug 90 06:57:44 GMT
References: <1990Aug11.203944.10478@nlm.nih.gov>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Distribution: na
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 16

In article <1990Aug11.203944.10478@nlm.nih.gov> states@tech.nlm.nih.gov () writes:
>Let's assume that John Mashey is correct (he usually is :-) and that we
>will soon see full 64-bit microprocessors.  You need 64-bits for alot
>of floating point, something more than 32-bits would be nice for
>adressing, sticking with factors of 2 in word size has advantages

64 bit addresses, registers (and "natural" sizes for ints and floats)
are one thing, but should the instructions grow to 64 bits at the same
time?  How about the program counter?  (How fast are programs growing
and how big are they now?)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@neon.stanford.edu
BELLNET: (415) 723-3088