Xref: utzoo comp.arch:7762 comp.misc:4606 comp.lang.misc:2450 comp.protocols.misc:437
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sco!seanf
From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.misc,comp.lang.misc,comp.protocols.misc
Subject: Re: "big endian" and "little endian" - first usage for computer
Message-ID: <2015@scolex>
Date: 5 Jan 89 13:12:03 GMT
References: <2766@cbnews.ATT.COM> <10147@well.UUCP> <13045@cup.portal.com> <20264@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: seanf@scolex.UUCP (Sean Fagan)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 18

In article <20264@ames.arc.nasa.gov> lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Hugh LaMaster) writes:
>I could be wrong, but I think a fully consistent little-endian machine
>(e.g. nsc 32xxx) does not have this disadvantage.

You're wrong.  On a NSC 32k, addresses are in the wrong order (actually, I
think it might just be displacements), because the upper 1 or 2 bits
determine the size of the address (and means that you can't use a
displacement of 2gigs unsigned, or 1 gig signed.  everybody sigh in unison
8-)).  Also, I'd bet that the FP format is backwards (wrt big vs. little
endian).

Now, *Cybers* don't have this problem, you betcha.  It's kinda nice not
having to worry about byte addressing...

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "Merry Christmas, drive carefully and have some great sex."
seanf@sco.UUCP   |     -- Art Hoppe
(408) 458-1422   | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.