> Shouldn't they be 64 bits on most modern systems then?
Arguably so, but then one would lose the ability to natively name 16-bit integer types because "short" would be 32 bits.
An earlier comment addresses x86-64. AArch64 (pedantically, the A64 instruction set used for AArch64's 64-bit execution mode) is similar, in that addresses are 64 bits wide but ALU instructions typically encode a width bit, called "sf", that selects either 32- or 64-bit data registers and arithmetic. See, for example, <a href="https://arm.jonpalmisc.com/latest_aarch64/add_addsub_ext" rel="nofollow">https://arm.jonpalmisc.com/latest_aarch64/add_addsub_ext .
RobotToaster · · focus · HN ↗
Shouldn't they be 64 bits on most modern systems then?
entrope · · focus · HN ↗
Arguably so, but then one would lose the ability to natively name 16-bit integer types because "short" would be 32 bits.
An earlier comment addresses x86-64. AArch64 (pedantically, the A64 instruction set used for AArch64's 64-bit execution mode) is similar, in that addresses are 64 bits wide but ALU instructions typically encode a width bit, called "sf", that selects either 32- or 64-bit data registers and arithmetic. See, for example, <a href="https://arm.jonpalmisc.com/latest_aarch64/add_addsub_ext" rel="nofollow">https://arm.jonpalmisc.com/latest_aarch64/add_addsub_ext .
imtringued · · focus · HN ↗
Not sure how what you said makes sense.
entrope · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]