From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d2fe923345e67606
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: sciance@gdls.com (Steve Sciance)
Subject: Re: Byte sex confusion
Date: 1997/05/14
Message-ID: <5lci2r$c6s@mill.gdls.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 241516663
Distribution: world
References: <33716475.43A9@top.monad.net>
 <01bc5bfd$78858100$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> <dewar.863177374@merv>
Organization: General Dynamics, Land Systems Division
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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.
> 
>