Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!apple!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!ucsd!network.ucsd.edu!celit!dave From: dave@fps.com (Dave Smith) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: What *should* architectural pointers point at? Message-ID: <11192@celit.fps.com> Date: 31 Aug 90 22:29:48 GMT References: <0887@sheol.UUCP> <41167@mips.mips.COM> <3318@awdprime.UUCP> Sender: daemon@fps.com Reply-To: dave@fps.com (Dave Smith) Organization: FPS Computing Inc., San Diego CA Lines: 19 In article <3318@awdprime.UUCP> tif@reed.UUCP (Paul Chamberlain/32767) writes: >Now there's an interesting thought. Why not order these 64 bits so that >the 3 on the left are the bit offset. Mere mortals would use it just like >a byte addressed machine but wizards could use those 3 bits anyway they like. That's a sick idea, right up there with the way that Intel arranged the bits in the segment descriptors for the '286/'386. You can't increment your bit address and walk right through memory, you've got to do all kinds of funky addressing. This bit addressing stuff is all fine and well, but it seems like a lot of extra baggage to carry around for a little bit-twiddling every now and then. Why not just have operations that will return the nth bit? -- David L. Smith FPS Computing, San Diego ucsd!celerity!dave or dave@fps.com