sizeof(char)

[Craig Hansen]

> >>[...]  But I definitely want the
> >> next generation of desktop processors to support bit addressing.
> >
> >If you're going to convince Motorola, Intel, National Semiconductor, DEC,
> >MIPS, etc., etc.  to put bit-addressing into their next generation of chips,
> >[...]
> 

One reason to avoid bit-addressing is that it uses up three more bits of
addresses, pointers, offsets, etc.  Given a 32-bit word-size, which can be
reasonably expected to be the norm for some time, and that the IBM XA
conversion (as well as the 68010->68012/68030 conversion) indicates that
24-bit addressing isn't nearly enough, those three bits are remarkably
precious.

Of course, one can use word- or byte-address pointers with bit offsets,
but that isn't quite the same thing as a simple linear bit-address,
and is harder to manipulate.

-- 

Craig Hansen			|	 "Evahthun' tastes
MIPS Computer Systems		|	 bettah when it
...decwrl!mips!hansen		|	 sits on a RISC"