From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,232e89dd4cc3c154 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 101deb,dea70f96af442ea2 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 103376,232e89dd4cc3c154 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gid8d3408f8c3,gidbda4de328f,gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!jacob-sparre.dk!ada-dk.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 23:36:16 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <4dae2a4b$0$55577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net><4db90113$0$77724$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1304138179 31186 69.95.181.76 (30 Apr 2011 04:36:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 04:36:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Xref: g2news2.google.com sci.math:234340 comp.lang.c:126675 comp.lang.fortran:41373 comp.lang.pl1:2432 comp.lang.ada:20066 Date: 2011-04-29T23:36:16-05:00 List-Id: "Keith Thompson" wrote in message news:lnsjt1w0oc.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org... > glen herrmannsfeldt writes: >> In comp.lang.fortran David Bernier wrote: > [...] >>> AFAIK, sizeof(unsigned long) can be relied upon to give the size >>> in 8-bit bytes of a C "unsigned long". >> >> No. You need CHAR_BIT to tell how many bits are in a char. >> It has been known to get to 64 on word addressed 64 bit machines. >> It must be at least 8, but can be more. > > Certainly CHAR_BIT *could* be 64 (or even more), but I've never heard > of a 64-bit system with CHAR_BIT==64. Such an implementation would > have trouble dealing with octet-oriented data from other systems. > Some DSPs (digital signal processors) do have CHAR_BIT > 8. > There have been systems with, for example, 9-bit bytes, but they > had pretty much become obsolete by the time C was standardized. The Unisys U2200 implementation that we used in the mid-1990's had 9-bit characters, and had a full C implementation. I didn't use it much personally (I was working on the Ada compiler), but we had extensive facilities to interface to the C compiler which definitely used pointers at 9-bit bytes. (The machine was most efficient when used with 36-bit word addressing, which we used extensively in the Ada compiler, but the C-compiler used double-word pointers including a byte offset -- so we had to have conversion facilities to get back and forth). Not sure of exactly what version of C that was, but surely well after "C was standardized". Randy.