4 ms·
If anything, bit order on most CPUs can be considered "little endian", because that's how CPU documentation numbers the bits (0, the first, being the lowest ord
by colanderman 5y ago
If anything, bit order on most CPUs can be considered "little endian", because that's how CPU documentation numbers the bits (0, the first, being the lowest order). Not to mention bit-field insert/extract opcodes, like BEXTR on x86 [1] or UBFX on ARM [2].
As another commenter points out, IBM is one of the few to reverse this and number bits in a big-endian order on their big-endian processors, with 0 being the most significant.
[1] https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/bextr https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/bextr
[2] https://www.keil.com/support/man/docs/armasm/armasm_dom1361289914598.htm https://www.keil.com/support/man/docs/armasm/armasm_dom13612...
- Gibbon1 5y agoA long time ago TI's bit order was reversed from everyone elses. I remember because I wired one of their chips the way you would expect and didn't work right. My opinion big endian should be intentionally unsupported.
- sigjuice 5y agoThere are other possibilities for numbering bits. I have seen PowerPC documentation where 32-bit registers have bits numbered from 32 to 63, with 32 being the most significant.