>>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> No, I don't think so. In this case, the natural word size really
DS> is 16 bits, regardless of what's transparent to the
DS> programmer. (Just as 32-bit integers seem fastest for many things
DS> on Alphas, despite the fact that it's a 64-bit processor) All I
DS> want to do is make sure there are real-world cases of smallish
DS> integer machines that perl may want to run on, and I think that's
DS> been established now.
i would disagree. the natural size is usually the register size. the buz
size is usually just a cost and packaging consideration. the 8088 and
8086 ran the same software. the former had an 8 bit buss for cheaper
systems. same with the low end 68k chips. general purpose software always was
written independently of the bus size. only RTOS like programs cared
enough about bus cycles to require coding 16 bit ints.
DS> I think you'll find that's not the case, really. While it's a
DS> little early to grovel over bits of the code, now is *exactly* the
DS> time to make sure the core architecture's got no overt gotchas in
DS> it.
that is different. i said we should have the option to set the default
int size at config time. but we can't change the pointer size (in most
cases) so even on the 32/16 68k chips you would be penalized by every
pointer access. making the int 16 bits by default makes no sense
then. let the OS port worry about that and let them have the option to
select it.
uri
--
Uri Guttman --------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- http://www.sysarch.com
SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
The Perl Books Page ----------- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books
The Best Search Engine on the Net ---------- http://www.northernlight.com
