From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Bit_Order useful [was Query on portable bit extraction]
Date: 28 Oct 2001 17:23:19 -0800
Date: 2001-10-29T01:23:19+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0110281723.7a55fb54@posting.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 9rhlhr$u11j3$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de
"Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:<9rhlhr$u11j3$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>...
> I know there are some big-endian machines (the more recent ones, perhaps)
> whose manufacturers' documentation number the LSB as 0 and the MSB as 31 or
> 63.
This is highly confused if it happens. Bit numbering must
match byte ordering, or you get into a mess. The 68K
was notoriously messed up on this point (see the discussion
of this point in my book on microprocessors).
Certainly in Ada, the bit numbering should match the byte
ordering, or you will end up with non-contiguous fields
and a big mess.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-10-29 1:23 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
2001-10-28 19:07 ` Bit_Order useful [was Query on portable bit extraction] Nick Roberts
2001-10-29 1:23 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
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