From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 16bit C compilers 
In-Reply-To: Message from "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net> 
   of "Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:06:39 GMT." <87eljeen44.fsf@becket.becket.net> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <29394.1014331615@apnic.net>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@apnic.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:46:55 +1000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 538e4f7e-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025


> "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> writes:
> 
> > "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
> > > Since memory is so expensive these days...
> > 
> > In many embedded applications, every bit counts,
> > more for power consumption reasons than for manufacturing cost.
> 
> Right.  But the discussion was about what to do on a 64 bit machine.
> I think those processors are not in significant use in embedded
> applications.

MIPS sell more CPU's for embedded purposes than core desktop/scientific
computing don't they? I thought it was the #1 chip for lasers and other
devices.

What kind of CPU's do you think will power GPRS video-enabled cellphones?

Is this only the domain of special purpose codecs?

And games consoles are 64bit, and do not have anything like large enough
memory. I know 4mbyte is not as constrained as the 16-bit controller in a
washingmachine, but for once, the rendered video framebuf's probably are a
legit use of what memory there is there. Code can't take it all.

No?

-George