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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,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: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Byte sex confusion
Date: 1997/05/09
Message-ID: <dewar.863177374@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 240566748
References: <33716475.43A9@top.monad.net>
 <01bc5bfd$78858100$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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 First, surely the person who originally
made this up meant "sign extension", not "sign exchange" [the latter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.