Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!bach.lerc.nasa.gov!fsset
From: fsset@bach.lerc.nasa.gov (Scott E. Townsend)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m88k
Subject: Big Endian vs. Little Endian register pairs
Message-ID: <1991Apr30.185908.16474@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: 30 Apr 91 18:59:08 GMT
Sender: news@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Nasa Lewis Research Center ( Cleveland )
Lines: 12
Originator: fsset@bach.lerc.nasa.gov

Just curious: does anyone know what the arguments were for/against the
register pairing scheme?  It just occured to me that if the pairing
scheme was reversed (i.e. r1,r0 rather than r1,r2) then we'd save a cycle
loading many floating-point constants in preparation for fadd & friends.

This would of course look Little-Endian in a register dump :-(

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Townsend               |   Mail Stop: 5-11
NASA Lewis Research Center   |   Email: fsset@bach.lerc.nasa.gov
Cleveland, Ohio  44135       |