Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

2
  • Than you! So in short it seems that they needed a byte addressing just to effectively process 8-bits EBCDIC symbols, right? And if symbols were, let’s say 9-bits, they would create RAM with 9-bits addressing, right?
    – No Name QA
    Commented Jul 8, 2020 at 4:00
  • Let's be clear. This is not "RAM addressing" as in anything a memory unit necessarily sees. It's the address structure of the instruction set implemented by the CPU. The actual memory hardware may, for example, never see the 2 low bits of the address. But apart from that quibble: yes, the granularity if addressing matches, by design, the unit size of information to be processed. The S/360 designers discussed 6 bit versus 8 bit char sizes (discussed elsewhere in this forum) and if 6 bit had won, I suppose we might have had memory addressable in units of 6 bits.
    – dave
    Commented Jul 8, 2020 at 11:55