Sender:	nate AT cartsys DOT com
Message-ID:	<37433B8F.AA2EA708@cartsys.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 May 1999 15:30:39 -0700
From:	Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5 i586)
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	[OT] Re: Portability and size_t type related question
References:	<v01540b00b36879f4a788@[145.18.167.138]> <374322ea DOT 2462585 AT noticias DOT iies DOT es>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia wrote:
> 
> El día Wed, 19 May 1999 16:31:58 +0200, dlanor AT dds DOT nl (Ronald
> Landheer) escribió:
> 
> >>> > > Most people think that byte is a synonym for 8 bits.
> >>> > I'm aware of that. But that doesn't make it correct, at least not from
> >>> > a 'language-lawyer' point of view. Actually, the equivalence of 8 bits
> >>> > being a byte is a rather recent invention, compared to the use of the
> >>> > 'byte' in computing. There have been 7-bit bytes, 9-bit ones. 8 bits
> >>I think 8 bits is minimum.
> >Nope.. six bits is (for as far as I encountered).
> 
> Wrong again. There are still  a bunch of 4-bit microprocessors around
> there, and again this is just a *practical* limit. You can build 1-bit
> byte machines if you want. Not very useful, though.

I have a databook for a rather interesting 1-bit microcontroller.
-- 

Nate Eldredge
nate AT cartsys DOT com

- Raw text -