Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!jbs
From: jbs@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: sizeof(char)
Message-ID: <3831@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 10-Nov-86 01:27:39 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.3831
Posted: Mon Nov 10 01:27:39 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Nov-86 06:13:13 EST
References: <4617@brl-smoke.ARPA> <657@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Reply-To: jbs@eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal)
Followup-To: comp.arch
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 16
Xref: watmath comp.arch:4 comp.lang.c:11

In article <9081@sun.uucp> guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris) writes:
>>[...]  But I definitely want the
>> next generation of desktop processors to support bit addressing.
>
>If you're going to convince Motorola, Intel, National Semiconductor, DEC,
>MIPS, etc., etc.  to put bit-addressing into their next generation of chips,
>[...]

I realize this has nothing to do with the issue being discussed, but
let's keep the technical references accurate.  DEC's current
generation of processor chips (the 78032, aka MicroVAX-II) _does_
support bit addressing and manipulation.  It may be an interesting
question as to whether this is a good idea, so I've directed
discussion to comp.arch.

Jeff Siegal