Hi:

Thank you all very much.


2012/2/21 Bernd Petrovitsch [off-list ref]:

On Die, 2012-02-21 at 20:30 +0800, Tao Jiang wrote:
[...]

quoted

Now I know in the most modern machine there is no difference between BE and LE
at so called 'bit order' level.
Right?

One main difference between *byte* order and *bit* order is:

What are the means to address individual *bits*?
a) Bit shift and masking as in "1 << bit-number":
? This has a mathematical background and - implicitly - the
? least-significant bit has - thus - the number 0.
? I can't even think of an insane reason (let alone a sane one) to
? break the "shift left is for unsigned numbers equivalent to
? doubling" property - apart from the fact that it is defined in that
? way by C - and all other languages I came across. And the same holds
? for all CPUs/assembler instruction sets ....
b) use a bit-field as in "unsigned char b0:1, b1:1, b2:1, b3:1, b4:1,
? b5:1, b6:1, b7:1;":
? It is not defined by any C-standard and is - thus - up to the
? compiler, if b0 == (1 << 0) or b0 == (1 << 7) or anything else.
c) bit-test/st/clr assembler instructions in the architecture: Go read
? *if* your CPU has such stuff and how it relates to the "bit-shift and
? mask" method.
? I would be greatly surprised if it is different (on i386, it is equal
? since ages BTW) mainly because it makes absolutely no sense.
d) There is hardware with bit-addressable memory out there. Go read the
? manual and the same as c)
I doubt that it is different even for really old machines ....

? ? ? ?Bernd
--
Bernd Petrovitsch ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Email : bernd at petrovitsch.priv.at
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? LUGA : http://www.luga.at