From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Byte sex confusion
Date: 1997/05/09
Date: 1997-05-09T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dewar.863177374@merv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 01bc5bfd$78858100$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com
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 First, surely the person who originally
made this up meant "sign extension", not "sign exchange" [the latter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:[~1997-05-09 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 [this message]
1997-05-14 0:00 ` Steve Sciance
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 ` Matthew Heaney
1997-05-11 0:00 ` Oliver Kellogg
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox