From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" Message-ID: <3C6C8C30.42428AE7@null.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <1463098921@snellwilcox.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 16bit C compilers Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:55:48 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5148e742-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 steve.simon@snellwilcox.com wrote: > anyone tried to port it to a 16 bit CPU? What is a "16-bit CPU"? If you mean that a single address space is limited to 2^16 bytes, then that seems to be too small for Plan9. If you mean that the fast registers are 16 bits wide, then the porting job shouldn't be any worse than for 32-bit wide registers, all other architectural details being equal. (But it will run slower.) Or at least I *hope* the Plan9 coders used long instead of int when they needed more than 16 bits, something that has been standard practice since about 1977.