home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!haynes
- From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
- Newsgroups: comp.arch
- Subject: Re: A better theory for Endian origins
- Message-ID: <1iksm4INN70g@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
- Date: 8 Jan 93 21:45:40 GMT
- References: <1ikepuINNgt7@spim.mti.sgi.com> <1993Jan8.185448.2405@news.uiowa.edu>
- Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
- Lines: 22
- NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu
-
-
- In article <1993Jan8.185448.2405@news.uiowa.edu> jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes:
- >The decision whether to go big-endian or little-endian on byte numbering
- >has natural ties to the bit numbering in a word, and this is, I think,
- >one of the historical forces behind the war of the endians.
-
- Now this opens the can of another bunch of old war stories. The Burroughs
- B5500 had the bits numbered in one direction in the hardware maintenance
- manuals and the opposite direction in the software manuals. If I remember
- correctly (at chance!) the numbering was 1 2 3 4 for the hardware people
- and 3 2 1 0 for the software, yet the machine was big-endian.
-
- Then the G.E./Honeywell machines had the bits numbered in one direction
- in the CPU and in the opposite direction in the I/O controller. At least
- on the G.E. 635 generation
- --
- haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
- haynes@cats.bitnet
-
- "Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
- "No it aint! But ya gotta know the territory!"
- Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"
-