Path: ...!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!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: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 08:54:36 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <86zfkbaj3n.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> <86jzcjo1uw.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vii7qf$2m69k$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 17:54:37 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e21c1894af35152a2f46a9d8fe234703";
	logging-data="2446594"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19YD+MymaFJQj0htAdwSuNCizCNZb3sveA="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8hnTHQz+fT1yUFWUpFesfd0b8qI=
	sha1:1qlagPWb/yFVH22jx7Nrsg4Owl4=
Bytes: 2630

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb:
>
>> 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'm well aware of that distinction.

I expect most of the folks who participate in comp.arch are
aware of the distinction.  What I find disappointing are
postings that ignore or blur the distinction, so it's hard
to tell where one domain ends and the other begins.