From: antispam@fricas.org   
      
   Michael S  wrote:   
   >   
   > Now, if you ask me, I don't understand why Waldek Hebisch considers   
   > difference between 8-bit and [byte-addressable] 16-bit targets   
   > important. As far as size of relevant C types goes, they look the same:   
   > char - 8 bits   
   > int - 16 bit   
   > long - 32 bits   
   > There is possibly difference in the size of 'short', but I don't   
   > understand why it matters.   
   >   
   > Examples of still relevant 16-bit targets: Microchip PIC24, TI C5000   
   > The latter is not byte-addressable. I am not sure about the former.   
      
   Philip stated that _all_ SDCC targets round up _BitInt size to   
   next byte.  This is obvious behaviour for 8-bit processors.   
   For non-8 bit machines there are various tradeoff and it would   
   be interesting if they choose byte granularity anyway.   
      
   --   
                                 Waldek Hebisch   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)