Re: A89: dumb question

To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: A89: dumb question
From: "Kaus" <kaus@cybrzn.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:53:13 -0500
Delivered-To: assembly-89-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Delivered-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org


hehe. i see that now of course.  even in the rest of my own explainations, i
used 16bits for each instruction rather than my stated 32.  :) foolish me.
Kaus

----- Original Message -----
From: Zoltan Kocsi <zoltan@bendor.com.au>
To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: A89: dumb question


>
> > now, each instruction (without any extension words, of course) is 32
bits
> > (it is a 32 bit machine!!)
>
>No, insns w/o the extension words are 16 bits each on every single
>member of the 68k family.
>
>The 32-bit machine refers to the internal data path width and not the
>insn width.
>
>Regards,
>
>Zoltan
>
>