Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!svin02!rcpieter
From: rcpieter@svin02.info.win.tue.nl (Tiggr)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 64 bits--why stop there?
Message-ID: <1372@svin02.info.win.tue.nl>
Date: 29 Aug 90 17:45:13 GMT
References: <6106@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <2437@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <631@array.UUCP> <225@csinc.UUCP>
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 17

rpeglar@csinc.UUCP (Rob Peglar) writes:

|Speaking from experience on such a machine (true bit addresses), one has
|to deeply consider the relationship between compiler and OS code where
|byte addressing is taken for granted.  sure, the compiler generates
|the address (bit) of byte n as 0x100 (say) and byte n+1 as 0x108 (for
|example);  the real pain reveals itself in the numerous occasions where
|either the OS code or an application assumes integer = pointer.  you
|just can't add one to the above example (0x100+1 = 0x101) and assume
|byte n+1 lives at that address (0x101).  this kind of subtlety caused
|us the most pain in the development cycle.

The person adding 1 to the int expecting to have the (char *) casted int point
to the next byte shouldn't call himself a programmer ('cos he isn't producing
a program but pure garbage (eh?)).

Tiggr