Re: Keeping other stuff with addresses (was: What is an N-bit machine?)

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb:
>

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.

>
If you find discussions about how certain times were used
in the past disappointing... [..]