Re: Fat references

George Neuner <>
Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:23:56 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[26 earlier articles]
Re: Fat references (Jon Harrop) (2010-01-05)
Re: Fat references (Dennis Ritchie) (2010-01-05)
Re: Fat references (Kaz Kylheku) (2010-01-05)
Re: Fat references (BGB / cr88192) (2010-01-05)
Re: Fat references (Jon Harrop) (2010-01-06)
Re: Fat references (Jon Harrop) (2010-01-06)
Re: Fat references (George Neuner) (2010-01-07)
Re: Fat references (George Neuner) (2010-01-07)
Re: Fat references (George Neuner) (2010-01-07)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: George Neuner <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.arch
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:23:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
References: 09-12-045 09-12-055 10-01-003 10-01-008 10-01-009 10-01-016 10-01-019 10-01-030
Keywords: storage
Posted-Date: 08 Jan 2010 10:22:42 EST

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:57:25 GMT,
(Anton Ertl) wrote:

>glen herrmannsfeldt <> writes:
>>In comp.compilers Anton Ertl <> wrote:
>>> Yes, 16 bits were called a word on such 8-bit processors (there was
>>> another name for 8-bit units: byte), and it was commonly needed,
>>> because these machines used 16 bits for addressing their 64KB address
>>> space.
>>But not quadword and octoword.
>Sure, but once they had used "word" for 16 bits, they apparently had
>no fantasy left for names of larger units (hmm: phrase, sentence,
>paragraph; at least "line" and "page" are used:-).

Intel used the term "paragraph" to refer to the 16-byte blocks
addressed by 8086 segment registers. The so-called "huge" address
mode used a standard format:(segment * 16) + (offset % 16), in which
the segment selected the paragraph and the offset the byte within. It
enabled pointers to be value compared easily and eliminated the issue
of pointers having different segment and offset values referring to
the same memory location.


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.