Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!bbn!rochester!udel!burdvax!psuvax1!gondor.cs.psu.edu!przemek From: przemek@gondor.cs.psu.edu (Przemyslaw Klosowski) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: negative addresses Message-ID: <3583@psuvax1.psu.edu> Date: 11 May 88 01:12:27 GMT References: <2393@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU> Sender: netnews@psuvax1.psu.edu Reply-To: przemek@gondor.cs.psu.edu (Przemyslaw Klosowski) Organization: Penn State University Lines: 14 In article <2393@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU> wulf@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU (Bill Wulf) writes: >Has anyone ever seen a machine with "negative addresses", that is, one >where the address space is -2**31..2**31-1 rather than 0..2*32-1?? >Any thoughts on what the problems with such a scheme might be (or are)? > For one, all those nice addressing modes with index scaled by the size of the data structure: EA = (base) + (index)<<(ln2 size) won't work, unless index is restricted. przemek@psuvaxg.bitnet psuvax1!gondor!przemek