From: Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Query on portable bit extraction
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 01:30:39 GMT
Date: 2001-10-28T01:30:39+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3BDB5FB6.94899C3C@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 9req9o$tlsg8$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de
Nick Roberts wrote:
>
> AI95-133 confirm's this thread's view that the Bit_Order attribute is purely
> about how to interpret bit numbers in a record representation clause. As
> such, I'm afraid I think it was misconceived. There's no need for it on any
> machine, and it doesn't solve the problem that needs solving (that of big
> and little endianness). Does anyone have an example where Bit_Order was
> actually useful (or vital)?
I think you're mistaken. I recall (a) processor(s?) on which bit 1 was
the MSB and bit 8 the LSB of a byte. Many big-endian machines use lowest
bit # = MSB.
--
Jeff Carter
"I unclog my nose towards you."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-10-28 1:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-26 16:49 Query on portable bit extraction Mark Johnson
2001-10-26 17:08 ` Lutz Donnerhacke
2001-10-27 0:06 ` Jeffrey Carter
2001-10-27 4:23 ` Steven Deller
2001-10-27 16:31 ` Nick Roberts
2001-10-28 1:30 ` Jeffrey Carter [this message]
2001-10-28 19:07 ` Bit_Order useful [was Query on portable bit extraction] Nick Roberts
2001-10-29 1:23 ` Robert Dewar
2001-10-29 1:25 ` Query on portable bit extraction Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox