From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Sep 19 14:10:56 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F65316A417
	for <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:10:56 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from tinguely@casselton.net)
Received: from casselton.net (casselton.net [63.165.140.2])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB2013C45D
	for <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:10:56 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from tinguely@casselton.net)
Received: from casselton.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by casselton.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l8JDlkX4051408;
	Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:47:46 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from tinguely@casselton.net)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=casselton.net;
	s=ccnMail; t=1190209666; bh=znDtswNUlP9atuSJlSRTWag+chzl4SGD6Wu9/Ci
	hDtE=; h=Received:Date:From:Message-Id:To:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To;
	b=CZj9jV6IqUsYBh8C0plyYb/ga2OlYg5LCfch2SJGgIfPGu5QnYjdWczVfW+xrPcAk
	NCqSEow/OfvTJQ/HJgZwmHgkixoS0v07SDXVx1PcIf/gwot+suaY46bvMG0/jgibAVE
	uLl5fTUUmyB5dibWVFitx/7vnBj4NpH/cF6hzDE=
Received: (from tinguely@localhost)
	by casselton.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l8JDlkT2051407;
	Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:47:46 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from tinguely)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:47:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@casselton.net>
Message-Id: <200709191347.l8JDlkT2051407@casselton.net>
To: nb@synthcom.com
In-Reply-To: <20070919011453.U55860@synthcom.com>
Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 64bit integer problem?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor <freebsd-arm.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arm-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arm>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arm-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arm-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:10:56 -0000


>  There isn't an ARM implementation that doesn't have little endian (or the 
>  option for big endian AFAIK). The bigger question is, why put the chip in 
>  big endian mode in the first place when little is the default?

In the XScale case, the (network) micro-engines are running in big endian.
Running the processor in big endian saves a lot of byte swapping.

--Mark Tinguely.