Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:6567 comp.sys.m68k:676
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!ima!necntc!frog!john
From: john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.sys.m68k
Subject: Re: C machine
Message-ID: <2018@frog.UUCP>
Date: 20 Jan 88 03:01:00 GMT
References: <7535@alice.UUCP> <8226@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <461@auvax.UUCP> <147@ateng.UUCP>
Organization: Superfrog Heaven [ CRDS, Framingham MA ]
Lines: 25

In article <147@ateng.UUCP>, chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> Andrew Scott asks:
> >Why would a compiler vendor for the 68000 choose a 32 bit size for an int?
> To which Doug Gwyn replies:
> >To make it easier to port sloppily-written VAX code.
> Yes -- but not all compiler writers have buckled under the great mass of
> "AllTheWorldsAVax" programs.

Well, now that you mention it:  CRDS has always used 32 bits for an int on
the 68000, largely because (a) the 68020 was promised to be "real" 32 bits
when it came out, and (b) the rest of the system we were designing was 32
bits (it just had this bottleneck at the CPU chip).  (These, plus a desire
for marketing hype, I suppose).

The MC68000 is closer to being a 32 bit machine than the PDP-11 was, even if
it lacked niceties like 32 bit multiply or divide.

--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu

"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation."
		-- Johnny Hart