Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!voder!pyramid!wendyt
From: wendyt@pyrps5 (Wendy Thrash)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 80486 vs. 68040 code size [really: how many regs]
Message-ID: <72136@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 30 May 89 20:15:39 GMT
Sender: daemon@pyramid.pyramid.com
Reply-To: wendyt@pyrps5.pyramid.com (Wendy Thrash)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 9

In article <3252@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes:
>With the 16-bit-int choice,
>32-bit integers can be obtained where required by declaring variables
>"long".  There isn't any way to get the more compact, efficient 16-bit
>int operations if your compiler makes the (IMnotsoHO) wrong choice.

Uh, Joe, can't you turn that argument around to say that 16-bit integers
can be obtained where required by declaring variables "short" (or am
I being C-chauvinistic)?