Home » Mailing list archives » linux-kernel » 2007 » October » 5

Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
[view in full thread]
From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@...>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>
Subject: Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
Date: Friday, October 5, 2007 - 5:17 pm

Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com> writes:


Byte endianess and bit endianness are orthogonal concecpts.  A cpu can
have insns using both little and big endian bit addressing (btst
vs. bftst on m68k).  The bitfield ordering is a property of the ABI and
may even be different from how the cpu numbers the bits in its ISA.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
Messages in current thread:
__LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 2:27 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jan Engelhardt, (Fri Oct 5, 2:35 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 3:35 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Anton Altaparmakov, (Fri Oct 5, 5:06 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 5:10 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Lennart Sorensen, (Tue Oct 9, 1:46 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Tue Oct 9, 1:56 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 2:50 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Oct 9, 3:11 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 3:39 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Oct 9, 5:40 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 6:34 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, linux-os (Dick Johnson), (Wed Oct 10, 8:05 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Tue Oct 9, 2:57 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 3:37 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Tue Oct 9, 3:44 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 6:11 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Lennart Sorensen, (Tue Oct 9, 2:34 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 5:29 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 5:32 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 7:17 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jan Engelhardt, (Fri Oct 5, 3:43 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 3:47 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 4:04 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 4:07 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 5:17 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, linux-os (Dick Johnson), (Fri Oct 5, 4:34 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 4:37 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Benjamin Herrenschmidt, (Fri Oct 5, 7:27 pm)