Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!Chuck.Phillips From: Chuck.Phillips@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Chuck.Phillips) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: bit addressing (Re: 64 bits--why stop there?) Message-ID: Date: 5 Sep 90 04:36:42 GMT References: <6106@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <2437@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1791@tuvie> Sender: uucp@ncr-mpd.FtCollins Organization: NCR Microelectronics, Ft. Collins, CO Lines: 11 In-reply-to: hp@vmars.tuwien.ac.at's message of 4 Sep 90 13:35:09 GMT >>>>> On 4 Sep 90 13:35:09 GMT, hp@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Peter Holzer) said: Peter> What should sizeof (bit) be? 0.125? Good point. How about bitsizeof(x) returning x's size in bits and sizeof(x) returning ceiling(bitsizeof(x))? Thus (hopefully) the semantics of both malloc() and sizeof() can be preserved. -- Chuck Phillips MS440 NCR Microelectronics Chuck.Phillips%FtCollins.NCR.com 2001 Danfield Ct. Ft. Collins, CO. 80525 uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!bach!chuckp