Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:58:39 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> To: Alex Koshterek <havoc@lookanswer.com> Cc: Thomas Moestl <tmoestl@gmx.net>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Byte order? Message-ID: <20001120175839.B6292@ringworld.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <00112017513301.47740@pro.lookanswer.com>; from havoc@lookanswer.com on Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 05:47:47PM %2B0200 References: <00112017175200.47740@pro.lookanswer.com> <20001120164006.A1624@crow.dom2ip.de> <00112017513301.47740@pro.lookanswer.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 05:47:47PM +0200, Alex Koshterek wrote: > > This program gets it wrong. When the last byte of a long is set after the long was > > set to 1, we have a big endian architecture (the "little" end is at the 4th byte, > > so the "big end" is at the 1st byte). > > The x86 architecture _is_ little endian. > > > What? > on x86 long a =1 > in memory is a 01 00 00 00 > Lesser significant byte is first and most significant is last Exactly - the least significant byte comes first, the number is stored in memory from its 'little' end towards its 'big' end - hence, little-endian. G'luck, Peter -- I am not the subject of this sentence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001120175839.B6292>