Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!uvaarpa!mcnc!rti!sheol!throopw
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: What *should* architectural pointers point at?
Summary: I nominate bits
Message-ID: <0887@sheol.UUCP>
Date: 28 Aug 90 23:00:01 GMT
References: <MEISSNER.90Aug27105232@osf.osf.org>
Lines: 14

> From: meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner)
> IMHO, the 64 bit machine should represent all addresses in bits [...]
> Before people lynch me, let me explain, that I think that the
> addresses that are not appropriately aligned should trap.

Why should people lynch someone for that, when they don't lynch people
for advocating byte addresses that may or may not trap (or silently
fail) on unaligned operations?  (Or IS that a lynching offense? ...)

Surely bit-granular addressing is the only sensible way to go...  what
reasons are against it in a 64-bit world?
--
Wayne Throop <backbone>!mcnc!rti!sheol!throopw or sheol!throopw@rti.rti.org