Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!alberta!calgary!radford
From: radford@calgary.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.sys.m68k
Subject: Re: byte order: be reasonable - do it my way...
Message-ID: <755@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 17-Jan-87 15:56:37 EST
Article-I.D.: vaxb.755
Posted: Sat Jan 17 15:56:37 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 19-Jan-87 01:37:16 EST
References: <760@orcisi.UUCP> <1011@cuuxb.UUCP> <753@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> <980@gould9.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Calgary, Calgary, Ab.
Lines: 19
Summary: No, the 68008 isn't little-endian
Xref: watmath comp.arch:202 comp.sys.m68k:112

In article <980@gould9.UUCP>, joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) writes:
> The 68000 is big-endian, as is the 68020.
> 
> Recently I saw the suggestion that the 68008 is little-endian,
> except when fetching opcodes.  Could this be true?

No, it couldn't be true. A more ridiculous design decision would be hard
to imagine. Come to think of it, that may not be all that strong an 
argument :-)

Anyway, I've actually used both 68000 and 68008 processors, and can assure
you that they are pretty much compatible. According to the documentation,
they even went so far as to have the 68008 trap word accesses at an odd
address (I didn't actually try it). Personally, I think this was going 
too far, especially as (I am given to understand) the 68020 doesn't. (I
know, I know, the 68008 came earlier...)

    Radford Neal
    The University of Calgary