Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:7905 comp.arch:3845
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!att-ih!pacbell!ames!hc!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!voder!apple!bcase
From: bcase@Apple.COM (Brian Case)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Bit Addressable Architectures
Message-ID: <7594@apple.Apple.Com>
Date: 8 Mar 88 18:47:59 GMT
References: <11702@brl-adm.ARPA> <243@eagle_snax.UUCP> <2245@geac.UUCP> <1988Mar3.182645.703@utzoo.uucp> <7374@sol.ARPA> <1799@gumby.mips.COM>
Reply-To: bcase@apple.UUCP (Brian Case)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 14

In article <1799@gumby.mips.COM> earl@mips.COM (Earl Killian) writes:
>It's [BIT ADDRESSABILITY] more right in certain environments.
>For example the TI 34010
>graphics processor is bit-addressed, which is a good match for pixel
>operations.  Also, when we have 64-bit addresses, using bit addresses
>will make sense (this is independent of whether you have bit
>load/stores).

Just as a point of interest, bit addressability does not win in certain
graphics environments; there are planar, chunky, and chunky-planar graphics
organizations (probably there are more, but I am not a graphics type),
and in chunky, bit addressability gains very little.  For 8-bits per
pixel in chunky, byte addressability is wonderful.  For 24-bits plus
alpha, 32-bit word addressability is great.  This is according to the
graphics guys here.  BTW, the TI 34010 is none too fast.