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:
>

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...  [..]

>
That isn't what I said, nor was it what I meant.

>
If it walks like a duck...

>
That is nothing but a gratuitous personal insult.  Why do you
engage in such conduct?

You quoted what I wrote out of context, and then expressed your
disappointment at what I wrote.  I restored the context, and
you said you didn't mean what you had said.

And I find no insult in what I wrote, but as you are a native
speaker, you may find something in there that I didn't put in.