From: sciance@gdls.com (Steve Sciance)
Subject: Re: Byte sex confusion
Date: 1997/05/14
Date: 1997-05-14T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5lci2r$c6s@mill.gdls.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: dewar.863177374@merv
Motorola had SEX instruction for sign extend in 6809 chip.
They renamed it EXT for 68000.
In article <dewar.863177374@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
> Nick says
>
> <<Incidentally, for those readers wondering, the 'sex' in the subject line
> refers (I assume, anyway) to the old Intel "sign exchange" instruction,
> which they were going to call SEX, but got cold feet just before
> publication (and called it CBW/CWD instead - not the same!)>>
>
> This is urban legend, it has no basis in fact whatsoever (it sure is
> amazing how entertaining, but completely false, informatoin of this
> kind is so easily spread).
>
> This one is particularly mangled. First, surely the person who originally
> made this up meant "sign extension", not "sign exchange" [the latter
> phrase is (a) meaningless and (b) has no possible connection with the
> instructions in equestion]. Second, sign extension has nothing to do
> with endianness.
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1997-05-14 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-05-07 0:00 Byte sex confusion Steven O'Neill
1997-05-08 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1997-05-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-05-14 0:00 ` Steve Sciance [this message]
1997-05-09 0:00 ` Roy Grimm
1997-05-09 0:00 ` Jeff Carter
1997-05-10 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-05-11 0:00 ` Oliver Kellogg
1997-05-11 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox