Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!necntc!adelie!mirror!cca!lmi-angel!wsr
From: wsr@lmi-angel.UUCP (Wolfgang Rupprecht)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.m68k
Subject: Re: byte order: be reasonable - do it my way...
Message-ID: <112@lmi-angel.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Jan-87 11:35:32 EST
Article-I.D.: lmi-ange.112
Posted: Wed Jan 14 11:35:32 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Jan-87 00:54:31 EST
References: <760@orcisi.UUCP>
Reply-To: wsr@lmi-angel.UUCP (Wolfgang Rupprecht)
Organization: LISP Machine, Inc (Cambridge Engineering HQ)
Lines: 23
Xref: mnetor comp.arch:191 comp.sys.intel:107 comp.sys.m68k:115

In article <> mwm@cuuxb.UUCP (Marc W. Mengel) writes:
>	The bit notation is strictly notational, and has no bearing on
>	the operation of the cpu.   One could go entirely through any
>	MC68000 book and replace the bit-numbers appropriately throughout.
>
>	Bit notation (what way you number which bits) has no relation
>	to byte ordering.  I could number my bits:
>		13579BDF2468ACE
>		000000000000001
>	to represent the number 1 if I so chose.  Saying that byte ordering
>	that proceeds in the opposite direction to bit ordering is
>	some how "inconsistent" is part of your argument, I would maintain
>	that it is moot.

Unfortunately thats not the case. Look at the BSET, BCLR, BTST (bit
set, clear and test) instructions. If you do a:

	BSET.L d0, somelocation

with #31 in d0, you have set the MSB (byte 0!) of the long-word. This
is *LOW* endian.
-- 
Wolfgang Rupprecht	{harvard|decvax!cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!wsr