Re: Fat references

"Dennis Ritchie" <dmr@bell-labs.com>
Tue, 5 Jan 2010 05:37:42 -0000

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[21 earlier articles]
Re: Fat references kkylheku@gmail.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2010-01-04)
Re: Fat references cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB / cr88192) (2010-01-03)
Re: Fat references bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2010-01-04)
Re: Fat references anton@a4.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2010-01-04)
Re: Fat references kkylheku@gmail.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2010-01-04)
Re: Fat references jon@ffconsultancy.com (Jon Harrop) (2010-01-05)
Re: Fat references dmr@bell-labs.com (Dennis Ritchie) (2010-01-05)
Re: Fat references kkylheku@gmail.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2010-01-05)
Re: Fat references cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB / cr88192) (2010-01-05)
Re: Fat references jon@ffconsultancy.com (Jon Harrop) (2010-01-06)
Re: Fat references jon@ffconsultancy.com (Jon Harrop) (2010-01-06)
Re: Fat references gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2010-01-07)
Re: Fat references gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2010-01-07)
[1 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Dennis Ritchie" <dmr@bell-labs.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 05:37:42 -0000
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 09-12-045 09-12-055 10-01-003 10-01-008 10-01-009
Keywords: C, architecture, history
Posted-Date: 05 Jan 2010 13:36:30 EST

"glen herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message


> I believe the Cray-1 does 64 bit memory operations, and that most (if
> not all) C compilers for the Cray-1 used a CHAR_BIT of 64. If C char,
> short, int, and long are all 64 bits, why have a name other than word
> for them?


I'm not positive about what we did for the Cray 1, but XMP and
YMP used CHAR_BIT 8. Probably the -1 did as well.


      Dennis


Post a followup to this message

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