3 ms·
In the context of a CPU's memory model, I wouldn't call it style because a byte--as an abstract term for the smallest addressable unit--is subdivided into nibbl
by xjay 3y ago
In the context of a CPU's memory model, I wouldn't call it style because a byte--as an abstract term for the smallest addressable unit--is subdivided into nibbles (digits), where the size of a nibble dictates what base makes sense.
A 9-bit byte is subdivided into three 3-bit nibbles/digits (2^3=base-8) [000, 777].
An 8-bit byte (octet) is evenly subdivided into two 4-bit nibbles/digits (2^4=base-16) [00, FF].
In documentation--given that the majority of computers use 8-bit bytes--the base we choose to represent 3-bit fields is a separate topic, and could be called style.
- kragen 3y agothere's something to that as a side note, i have a quibble with your definition of 'byte'. lots of computers have been word-oriented, with words being generally the smallest addressable unit word sizes in word-addressed computers have included 12 bits (pdp-8), 16 bits (nova and tandem), 18 bits (pdp-7 and ga144), 20 bits (mup21), 32 bits (zuse z4, chifir, and maybe some ti dsps, not sure), 36 bits (pdp-10, ibm 704, ibm 709), 60 bits (cdc 6600), 64 bits (cray unless you count the parity bits), and so on it was not normal practice to describe any of these words as a 'byte'; more commonly, you would divide the word into (possibly variable-size) 'bytes', each representing one character, even though you couldn't load those bytes individually from memory