At 09:48 PM 12/30/00 +0000, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >At 01:05 PM 12/29/00 +0000, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> >>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >I'm reasonably certain that all platforms that perl will ultimately
> run on
> >> >can muster hardware support for 16-bit integers.
> >>
> >>Hmm, most modern RISCs are very bad at C-like 16-bit arithmetic - they have
> >>a tendency to widen to 32-bits.
> >
> >That's fine. I was thinking of smaller processors that might be used in
> >embedded apps and such. (I'm also not sure what's the most efficient
> >integer representation on things like the ARM microprocessors are)
>
>ARM7/ARM9 are both 32-bit
>MIPS has both 32-bit and 64-bit variants.
That's good. Though do either of them have 16-bit data busses?
>DSPs are more messy.
That's probably a bit too specialized a piece of hardware to worry about.
Unlss things have changed lately, they're not really general-purpose CPUs.
>It is micro-controllers that you have to worry about
Yeak, I know a lot of the old 8 and 16 bit chips are in use as control
devices places. Those are the ones I'm thinking about. (Not that hard, but
I don't want to rule them out needlessly)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
