[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.programming

64-bit bytes

kenobi

1/5/2015 9:38:00 AM

(move here if someona like to comment on this
specyfic topic, also mirror it to comp.programming in hope to move up that group for more c-unrelated programming topic discussions)


> like it was already mantioned by some (and i also think so) byte is more like obsolete today times
> it was invented (afaik) to get off variable bit-field length troubles, now it got back with some variable byte feild length troubles
> (i mean mostly decoding instruction stream in x86 which must be done in sub nanosecond scale and is quite complex in x86 asm)
> How much it would be simpler if byte would have 32 bits - instruction opcode would fit in one byte adress in one or two, that would be great simplicity; also joining such 32bit byte with utf-32 would let sword cut such many utf-8 utf-16 utf-32 dillemates.. also endiannes/low endian hell would drop down a bit, as most values would not be reversed
> just becouse you will se a regular bytes often
> - so definitely x86 like machines should go onto 32 byte way

yet more option indeed is 64-bit byte option,
this sounded a bit crazy at first*, but is some interesting option too

*the problem is that this will waste a bandwidth in noticable way, i think 32 bit byte in this time will not result in any waste at all but 64-bit will do; On the other side it can have something oldschool new-technology feeling, and you can trade some waste for newteh simplicity sometimes, why no, we're not so poor anyway to not be able to toy with some interesting machines sometimes ;/ (but usilng 64-bit byte i mean like supplementary machines
like some mainframes or something like that ;/ probably not home stuff
42 Answers

Robin Vowels

1/8/2015 8:47:00 AM

0

On Monday, January 5, 2015 8:38:32 PM UTC+11, fir wrote:
> (move here if someona like to comment on this
> specyfic topic, also mirror it to comp.programming in hope to move up that group for more c-unrelated programming topic discussions)
>
>
> > like it was already mantioned by some (and i also think so) byte is more like obsolete today times
> > it was invented (afaik) to get off variable bit-field length troubles,

Nothing of the sort.
The byte of 8 bits was introduced in order to make it easier to process
characters.
Earlier machines having words of 32 bits and more (e.g., 60 bits)
handled characters clumsily.
It was far easier to have character-handling instructions access
those 8-bit characters directly (and not as a part of a much longer word).

> now it got back with some variable byte feild length troubles
> > (i mean mostly decoding instruction stream in x86 which must be done in sub nanosecond scale and is quite complex in x86 asm)
> > How much it would be simpler if byte would have 32 bits - instruction opcode would fit in one byte adress in one or two, that would be great simplicity; also joining such 32bit byte with utf-32 would let sword cut such many utf-8 utf-16 utf-32 dillemates.. also endiannes/low endian hell would drop down a bit, as most values would not be reversed
> > just becouse you will se a regular bytes often
> > - so definitely x86 like machines should go onto 32 byte way
>
> yet more option indeed is 64-bit byte option,
> this sounded a bit crazy at first*, but is some interesting option too
>
> *the problem is that this will waste a bandwidth in noticable way,
> i think 32 bit byte

A byte is 8 bits.

> in this time will not result in any waste at all but 64-bit will do;
> On the other side it can have something oldschool new-technology feeling,
> and you can trade some waste for newteh simplicity sometimes, why no,
> we're not so poor anyway to not be able to toy with some
> interesting machines sometimes ;/ (but usilng 64-bit byte i mean
> like supplementary machines
> like some mainframes or something like that ;/ probably not home stuff

kenobi

1/8/2015 8:54:00 AM

0

W dniu czwartek, 8 stycznia 2015 09:46:52 UTC+1 uzytkownik robin....@gmail.com napisal:
> On Monday, January 5, 2015 8:38:32 PM UTC+11, fir wrote:
> > (move here if someona like to comment on this
> > specyfic topic, also mirror it to comp.programming in hope to move up that group for more c-unrelated programming topic discussions)
> >
> >
> > > like it was already mantioned by some (and i also think so) byte is more like obsolete today times
> > > it was invented (afaik) to get off variable bit-field length troubles,
>
> Nothing of the sort.
> The byte of 8 bits was introduced in order to make it easier to process
> characters.
> Earlier machines having words of 32 bits and more (e.g., 60 bits)
> handled characters clumsily.
> It was far easier to have character-handling instructions access
> those 8-bit characters directly (and not as a part of a much longer word).
>

have you some quotation or something like this.. in wiki byte is talking about variable length fields.. and logicallt when computers are build there has to be decision or use variable lenght fields or fixed length fields,
this is base decistion and i think was taken
thus byte appeard





> > now it got back with some variable byte feild length troubles
> > > (i mean mostly decoding instruction stream in x86 which must be done in sub nanosecond scale and is quite complex in x86 asm)
> > > How much it would be simpler if byte would have 32 bits - instruction opcode would fit in one byte adress in one or two, that would be great simplicity; also joining such 32bit byte with utf-32 would let sword cut such many utf-8 utf-16 utf-32 dillemates.. also endiannes/low endian hell would drop down a bit, as most values would not be reversed
> > > just becouse you will se a regular bytes often
> > > - so definitely x86 like machines should go onto 32 byte way
> >
> > yet more option indeed is 64-bit byte option,
> > this sounded a bit crazy at first*, but is some interesting option too
> >
> > *the problem is that this will waste a bandwidth in noticable way,
> > i think 32 bit byte
>
> A byte is 8 bits.
>
> > in this time will not result in any waste at all but 64-bit will do;
> > On the other side it can have something oldschool new-technology feeling,
> > and you can trade some waste for newteh simplicity sometimes, why no,
> > we're not so poor anyway to not be able to toy with some
> > interesting machines sometimes ;/ (but usilng 64-bit byte i mean
> > like supplementary machines
> > like some mainframes or something like that ;/ probably not home stuff

Robin Vowels

1/11/2015 11:46:00 PM

0

On Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 7:53:54 PM UTC+11, fir wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 8 stycznia 2015 09:46:52 UTC+1 uzytkownik r.nospam@gmail.com napisal:
> > On Monday, January 5, 2015 8:38:32 PM UTC+11, fir wrote:
> > > (move here if someona like to comment on this
> > > specyfic topic, also mirror it to comp.programming in hope to move up that group for more c-unrelated programming topic discussions)
> > >
> > >
> > > > like it was already mantioned by some (and i also think so) byte is more like obsolete today times
> > > > it was invented (afaik) to get off variable bit-field length troubles,
> >
> > Nothing of the sort.
> > The byte of 8 bits was introduced in order to make it easier to process
> > characters.
> > Earlier machines having words of 32 bits and more (e.g., 60 bits)
> > handled characters clumsily.
> > It was far easier to have character-handling instructions access
> > those 8-bit characters directly (and not as a part of a much longer word).
> >
>
> have you some quotation or something like this.. in wiki byte is talking about variable length fields.. and logicallt when computers are build there has to be decision or use variable lenght fields or fixed length fields,
> this is base decistion and i think was taken
> thus byte appeard

A byte is a fixed-length field of 8 bits.

Richard Heathfield

1/12/2015 12:33:00 AM

0

robin.vowels@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> A byte is a fixed-length field of 8 bits.

....except when it isn't. For example, some embedded systems ("freestanding
implementations") use 32-bit bytes. At least one of the Analog SHARC chips
uses 32-bit bytes.

IEC 80000-13 defines the byte to be 8 bits, but there are other
international standards that use more flexible definitions (e.g. ISO/IEC
9899, which requires only that a byte must be *at least* 8 bits).

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Bartc

1/12/2015 1:36:00 AM

0

On 12/01/2015 00:32, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> robin.vowels@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> A byte is a fixed-length field of 8 bits.
>
> ...except when it isn't. For example, some embedded systems ("freestanding
> implementations") use 32-bit bytes. At least one of the Analog SHARC chips
> uses 32-bit bytes.
>
> IEC 80000-13 defines the byte to be 8 bits, but there are other
> international standards that use more flexible definitions (e.g. ISO/IEC
> 9899, which requires only that a byte must be *at least* 8 bits).

Nonsense. A byte is generally understood to be 8 bytes.

I have a memory stick plugged into my PC, and on it it says it's 4GB - 4
gigabytes. What are the chances of that being anything other 32G bits?
Be nice if it was perhaps 128G bits, but it isn't!

The same goes for specifying the capacity of most types of memory.

--
Bartc

Robin Vowels

1/12/2015 4:56:00 AM

0

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 11:32:42 AM UTC+11, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> r.nospam.vowels@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > A byte is a fixed-length field of 8 bits.
>
> ...except when it isn't. For example, some embedded systems ("freestanding
> implementations") use 32-bit bytes. At least one of the Analog SHARC chips
> uses 32-bit bytes.

They are more appropriately called "words".

> IEC 80000-13 defines the byte to be 8 bits, but there are other
> international standards that use more flexible definitions (e.g. ISO/IEC
> 9899, which requires only that a byte must be *at least* 8 bits).

Richard Heathfield

1/12/2015 9:08:00 AM

0

BartC wrote:

> On 12/01/2015 00:32, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> robin.vowels@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> A byte is a fixed-length field of 8 bits.
>>
>> ...except when it isn't. For example, some embedded systems
>> ("freestanding implementations") use 32-bit bytes. At least one of the
>> Analog SHARC chips uses 32-bit bytes.
>>
>> IEC 80000-13 defines the byte to be 8 bits, but there are other
>> international standards that use more flexible definitions (e.g. ISO/IEC
>> 9899, which requires only that a byte must be *at least* 8 bits).
>
> Nonsense.

Nonsense it may be. ISO/IEC 9899 it most certainly is.

> A byte is generally understood to be 8 bytes.

And you accuse /me/ of nonsense? Furrfu.

>
> I have a memory stick plugged into my PC, and on it it says it's 4GB - 4
> gigabytes. What are the chances of that being anything other 32G bits?

There's almost certainly a railway not too far away from you. What are the
chances that it's the same gauge as the rest of the railways in your local
governmental district? By the same reasoning, therefore, all the railways in
the world have the same gauge. Except that they don't, of course. Non-8-bit-
byte systems do actually exist, your incredulity notwithstanding.

> Be nice if it was perhaps 128G bits, but it isn't!
>
> The same goes for specifying the capacity of most types of memory.

So either you agree that some bytes are other than 8 bits wide, or you are
arguing that most == all.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Dmitry A. Kazakov

1/12/2015 9:12:00 AM

0

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 01:35:30 +0000, BartC wrote:

> On 12/01/2015 00:32, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> robin.vowels@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> A byte is a fixed-length field of 8 bits.
>>
>> ...except when it isn't. For example, some embedded systems ("freestanding
>> implementations") use 32-bit bytes. At least one of the Analog SHARC chips
>> uses 32-bit bytes.
>>
>> IEC 80000-13 defines the byte to be 8 bits, but there are other
>> international standards that use more flexible definitions (e.g. ISO/IEC
>> 9899, which requires only that a byte must be *at least* 8 bits).
>
> Nonsense. A byte is generally understood to be 8 bytes.
>
> I have a memory stick plugged into my PC, and on it it says it's 4GB - 4
> gigabytes. What are the chances of that being anything other 32G bits?

The chances are low, but possible.

> Be nice if it was perhaps 128G bits, but it isn't!

You wouldn't notice a difference because the file system like FAT would
likely be unable to use extra bits.

There is a confusion between two entities usually called byte:

1. Least addressable machine memory unit

2. Atomic encoding unit (e.g. octet in an I/O protocol, an item of a blob,
an element of file block)

Historically byte started as #1 which lead to a variety of byte sizes.
Presently it is more #2 than #1.

> The same goes for specifying the capacity of most types of memory.

Yes, but capacity /= number of bits. As an example consider the parity bit.

If you define capacity as payload data then your memory stick is quite less
than 4GB, or, with compression, more. All depends on what you count as
payload and what as overhead. Now, returning to #1, ASCII character might
be 32 bits long, but its *capacity* would be still 7 bits.

--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-...

Richard Heathfield

1/12/2015 9:19:00 AM

0

robin.vowels@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 11:32:42 AM UTC+11, Richard Heathfield
> wrote:
>> r.nospam.vowels@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > A byte is a fixed-length field of 8 bits.
>>
>> ...except when it isn't. For example, some embedded systems
>> ("freestanding implementations") use 32-bit bytes. At least one of the
>> Analog SHARC chips uses 32-bit bytes.
>
> They are more appropriately called "words".

So what would you call the smallest addressable unit of memory, then? That's
what "byte" is supposed to mean, after all. So if the smallest addressable
unit in a system is 12 bits, presumably a byte is 12 bits wide on that
system. (There was a Cray, I forget which, with actual genuine 64-bit bytes,
and they had to jump through all kinds of hoops to fake 8-bit bytes, mainly
because of people like you). Or, if you prefer to listen to Wikipedia, a
"byte" is the number of bits used to encode a single character of text, in
which case - given UTF-8 - we're going to need the size of the byte to
*vary* between 8 and 32 bits, depending on the character. And /that/ is
simply ridiculous.

Can you come up with a definition of "byte" that always comes out as "eight
bits", but which doesn't have "eight bits" built into the definition?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Bartc

1/12/2015 11:43:00 AM

0

On 12/01/2015 09:07, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>> The same goes for specifying the capacity of most types of memory.
>
> So either you agree that some bytes are other than 8 bits wide, or you are
> arguing that most == all.

Only that some types of memory devices (such as the individual DRAM
chips I used to buy) might have a capacity specified in bits.

The more consumer-oriented modules, or even magnetic or optical media
where the data is stored serially, have capacities expressed in bytes.

They don't usually need to elaborate on what a byte actually is; the
8-bit byte is a de facto standard.

--
Bartc