On 30/05/2020 22:33, druck wrote:
> On 29/05/2020 22:03, Gareth Evans wrote:
>> On 29/05/2020 21:20, druck wrote:
>>> On 28/05/2020 12:49, Gareth Evans wrote:
>>>> Not forgetting that all instructions encode into 32 bits, so
>>>> a compiler based on 64 bit data alone will be struggling to
>>>> output dollops of 32 bits, perhaps a variation of the PEEK and
>>>> POKE so favoured by early domestiv BASICs?
>>>
>>> I'm afraid this makes no sense at all. Both ARMv7 (32 bit) and ARMv8
>>> (ARMv8) can handle data of 8, 16, 32, and 64 bit widths.
>>
>> It makes perfect sense in the context of the discussion about a
>> Dreadnought language that has ONLY 64 bit variables.
>
> No, its still gibberish. BASIC and C running on 8 bit machines could
> have 32 bit variables. Having the size of the variable match the size of
> the processors register size is the most efficient combinations, but it
> in no way precludes using larger (or smaller) variables in any language.
That was the problem on 8 bit micros with C - the language guarantees a
16 bit integer minimum.

even multiplying 8 x 8 bits meant promotion to 16 and a 16 bit result


>
> ---druck
>
>


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05