| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <m34pgzdii7.fsf@maximus.localdomain> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:34:56 +0200 From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl> To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> Cc: Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>, Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>, Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@....ac.uk>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> writes: > but the gist is that IBM has > traditionally bit 0 for MSB and x for LSB. It's a pain to work with: > for one, bits in the same place in a word (say, control register) are > renumbered in 32 vs 64. I wasn't aware of that, but it doesn't really change the bit order, only bit names (numbers actually). Extremely weird BTW but I guess these things weren't that obvious to everyone some 50 years ago. > And I've worked on at least one piece of > hardware in which the hardware designer had a brain-fart and first board > had bit 0 on the CPU wired to bit 0 on the northbridge - should have > been 31 -> 0, 30 -> 1, etc... I suspect the board wasn't able to run any OS, was it? :-) Would make a real example of the different order of bits, though. -- Krzysztof Halasa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists