Article View: comp.arch
Article #12839Re: byte order: be reasonable - do it my way...
From: radford
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1987 20:56
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1987 20:56
19 lines
1468 bytes
1468 bytes
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
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<755@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!alberta!calgary!radfordReferences:
<760@orcisi.UUCP> <1011@cuuxb.UUCP> <753@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> <980@gould9.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!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