Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: 64/32 bit processors - impending disaster? Message-ID: Date: 13 Feb 90 18:45:31 GMT References: <1990Feb12.182411.5982@ico.isc.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 14 In article <1990Feb12.182411.5982@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes that he expects 64-bit pointers before 64-bit integers... > But 64-bit integer operations, particularly multiply/divide, are still sort > of expensive...too expensive to justify the limited return. 32 bits is a > big number. On the other hand, there are chips extant for which 32-bit integer multiply and divide are considered too expensive to put into silicon. I can see a machine with 64-bit registers but only 32x32=64 multiplies without straining. You'd probably have 32-bit ints and 64-bit long ints. As you say... > If this 64/32 split happens, it's not going to be a happy situation... -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'