Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!amdahl!key!sjc
From: sjc@key.COM (Steve Correll)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Why not 48-bit processors?
Message-ID: <2081@key.COM>
Date: 28 Aug 90 19:31:47 GMT
References: <5539@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <13285@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <30728@super.ORG> <15249@drilex.UUCP>
Organization: Key Computer Labs, Fremont, CA
Lines: 16

In article <41004@mips.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes:
>    [Why not 48-bit processors?]
>1) Software inertia strongly impels people to build machines whose
>words contain 2**n bytes, for C especially, but also for other languages.

In article <15249@drilex.UUCP>, dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) writes:
> I think C would be the chief offender here--few other languages expose
> the characters/word ratio quite as much.

      INTEGER*4 I(5)
      DATA I / 4HDon', 4Ht fo, 4Hrget, 4HFort, 4Hran! /
      WRITE(6, 100) I
100   FORMAT(5A4)
      END
-- 
...{sun,pyramid}!pacbell!key!sjc 				Steve Correll