Wondering about 64-bit arch....

Jochen Schroeder jschrod at uni-muenster.de
Wed Feb 19 08:09:39 PST 2003


Am Mit, 2003-02-19 um 16.07 schrieb Ian Molton:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:25:25 +0000 (UTC)
> remy.bosch at hccnet.nl ("R. Bosch") wrote:
> 
> > > big-endian is just the word order.
> > 
> > Yes, but programming that in big-endian format is a hell. At least,
> > that's what I've heard. normaly one would write something like
> > 98 AF
> > 
> > Yet because a a patent long ago, one has to write
> > AF 98
> 
> HUH?!?!?!!?!
> 
> > Which is - or can be quite confusing IMO.
> > So I still wonder if Intel is playing the "smart" move, or stays
> > retarted...
> > 
> > I mean justy try to count like this:
> > 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 ....
> 
> Uh, thats BYTE order, not word order... the bits in a byte are the same
> way round in a big-endian machine. (usually!)
> 
> > In little endian:
> > 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ....
> > 
> > It's simplified, but real...
> 
> No, its oversimplified and artificial. you wouldnt write 0x2000 + 0x2000
> in C for a big endian box, it's still be 0x0002+0x0002, just like
> everything else.
> 
> the problems arise when you write LOW level code.
> 
> > /me GREAT respect for intel-gcc developers :-)
> 
> Why? tons of people use little endian. Big endian is the unusual
> standard (PPC is big endian, IIRC).
Many Mainfraimes especially IBM use big-endian, PPC is bi-endian, it can
do both, don't ask me how that works, just read it when looking up big-
and little-endian to understand what you guys were actually talking
about :-)
Cheers
Jochen

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-chat mailing list