| ??? 05/06/08 07:46 Read: times |
#154468 - It is worse than that Responding to: ???'s previous message |
The bigger X86 CPUs are backwards compatible.there is AX and EAX with instrutions for both. So you can code it either way. I recall the 68000 was 16 bit with some 32 bit registers.
I think the Interview answer is not without some ASM and even then it may not tell you anything you do not already know. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| find the size of processor | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C is not that portable! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thanks but could u clarify | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I think you missed the point | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Various compilers different results | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Word size - not code size? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| u r correct | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Determining object sizes - at run time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not quite | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Correct ! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not sure what you would do with the information | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| This was an interview question | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| More trick interview questions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I found the solution, Andy , Neil please comment | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Great! Now do it in C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Same logic for C and asm | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No, it isn't. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What would be the point? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It is worse than that | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the whole question is silly | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It can even get this silly... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
It is an interview question | 01/01/70 00:00 |