On May 19, 2006, at 3:47 PM, Olin Lathrop wrote:

>> For the sake of this discussion, let's define "core size"
>> based on the registers and the add instruction.
>
> Let's not since that's not what it means, and is certainly not
> how Microchip uses the term.  The core size refers to the
> instruction processor, which is why the PIC 16 is referred
> to as having a 14 bit core.

Microchip is the only one that uses it that way (arguably, they're
the only one that needs to.)  I use "core" to distinguish internal
register/alu size from external bus size (so that an 8088 and 8086
are both 16 bit cores.)

> If you don't say "core", it generally means the ALU width or the
> bit width of the most native data word.  In that respect the PIC
> 16 is a "8 bit processor" since it has 8 bit data paths and ALU.
>
Ok; I agree not to say "core."  This discussion isn't about
instruction size, it's about alu/register size.  When one says
that an ARM is a 16bit CPU and the PIC24 is a 16bit CPU, they're
not talking about instruction size.  And microchip would be a
laughing stock if they tried to claim to be the "16 bit leader"
based on the instruction size of PIC18...

BillW
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist