Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!nuchat!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: 64 bits--why stop there? Message-ID: Date: 2 Sep 90 23:54:36 GMT References: <6106@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <2437@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <631@array.UUCP> <225@csinc.UUCP> <1372@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> <41188@mips.mips.COM> <1990Aug31.174957.9612@cimage.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 10 In article <1990Aug31.174957.9612@cimage.com> paulh@dgsi.UUCP (Paul Haas/1000000) writes: > If bit addressing is "A Good Thing" aka. someone has a need for it, > they will add it to their compiler or cause their compiler vendor to > add it. Intel's cross-compiler for the 8051, which supports bit addresses (albeit in a special on-chip RAM with special instructions to access it), supports a "bit" data type and bit-granular arrays. So the embedded systems market already has some use for this. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com