Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!marvin
From: marvin@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Marvin Denman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m88k
Subject: Re: Big Endian vs. Little Endian register pairs
Message-ID: <1991Apr30.215621.25387@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
Date: 30 Apr 91 21:56:21 GMT
References: <1991Apr30.185908.16474@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: marvin@bushwood.UUCP (Marvin Denman)
Distribution: na
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Lines: 15

In article <1991Apr30.185908.16474@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> fsset@bach.lerc.nasa.gov (Scott E. Townsend) writes:
>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 :-(
>

How would we save anything?  Can you give a little more explanation?

-- 
Marvin Denman
Motorola 88000 Design
cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!marvin