Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?)
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2024 07:32:39 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <86jzcjo1uw.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <memo.20241128153105.12904U@jgd.cix.co.uk> <20241128185548.000031c9@yahoo.com> <vidtpt$pon$1@gal.iecc.com> <2024Nov30.072829@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2024Nov30.123536@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vieuks$1n5ve$1@dont-email.me> <2024Nov30.175756@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <20241130193206.00005c49@yahoo.com> <2024Nov30.190858@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <20241130202851.00005eca@yahoo.com> <2024Dec1.102826@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vihqbd$2hnrp$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2024 16:32:40 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4e58a9feca4aaad72226633a33b07410";
	logging-data="2700829"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+um8ZzuofeA0O6xHsPD7hy1Zp4lsW7YPU="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2WhC2GN/0r+wTJnurP58K2Ny2OA=
	sha1:W621h1rFgtvxLh0brIjzy3Sbayw=
Bytes: 2382

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:

> I think "ALU can add up to n-bit numbers" is a reasonable definition
> for an n-bit architecture, which also fits the 16-bit 68000.
> It does not fit the 360/30, or the Nova (but see de Castro's remark
> on the latter).

To me, the phrase "n-bit architecture" should depend only on such
characteristics as are defined by the architecture, and not depend
on features of a particular implementation.  The 360/30 has a 32-bit
(or is it 64-bit?) architecture, but only an 8-bit implementation.

If I may add a personal note, it's disappointing that postings in a
group nominally devoted to computer architecture routinely ignore
the distinction between architecture and implementation.  I don't
mind comments about matters of implementation, but the constant
blurring (or erasing) of the line between architecture and
implementation often makes it nearly impossible to have a discussion
just about architecture.