From: janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2025-12-25 09:49, Michael S wrote:   
   > On Thu, 25 Dec 2025 02:00:16 -0600   
   > Lynn McGuire  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 12/24/2025 11:11 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:   
   >>> Lynn McGuire  writes:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Did C never work on the 6 bit machines such as the Univac 1108 (36   
   >>>> bit)   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes, there is a C compiler for the Univac machines.   The byte size   
   >>> is 9 bits.   
   >>   
   >> I get the feeling that you are messing with me.  That would be four 9   
   >> bit characters per 36 bit word.   
   >>   
   >> But the machinations to store that unnatural 9 bits would be crazy.   
   >> I doubt that would be supported in hardware.   
   >   
   > Does not the same apply even stronger to your original suggestion to   
   > use 6-bit characters?   
      
   I don't recall whether the mainframes I used - and which of them - had   
   actually a "C" compiler; I think our 360-clone(?) at least had one. All   
   I can say is that it seems natural to support characters of appropriate   
   sizes. Our CDC (175 or 176; 60 bit) had used in Pascal 6 bit characters   
   (the 'text' data type was a 'packed array [1..10] of character'). And   
   I'd suppose that a 36 bit based architecture might use 9 bit characters   
   (or maybe use the spare bit just for error checking, or ignore it?).   
   Anyway, in my K&R version there's the "Honeywell 6000" hardware listed   
   with a 9 bit 'char' type.   
      
   Janis   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)