patternMinor
Big-Endian/Little-Endian argument - paper by Danny Cohen
Viewed 0 times
paperargumentdannyendianbiglittlecohen
Problem
Reading a book I was redirected to "On holy wars and a plea for peace" paper by Danny Cohen, which covers the "holy war" between big-endians and little-endians considering byte-order.
Reaching the summary of the memory section I got confused as the author sais:
To the best of my knowledge only the Big-Endians of Blefuscu have
built systems with a consistent order which works across
chunk-boundaries, registers, instructions and memories. I
failed to find a Little-Endians' system which is totally
consistent.
Which kind of contradicts his previous text sections covering little-endian:
e.g.
When they add the bit order and the byte order they get:
In this regime, when word W(n) is shifted right, its LSB moves into
the MSB of word W(n-1).
4
English text strings are stored in the same order, with the
first character in C0 of W0, the next in C1 of W0, and so on.
This order is very consistent with itself, with the Hebrew language,
and (more importantly) with mathematics, because significance
increases with increasing item numbers (address).
he even lateron sais:
The Big-Endians struck again, and without any resistance got their
way. The decimal number 12345678 is stored in the VAX memory in this
order:
This ugliness cannot be hidden even by the standard Chinese trick.
How did the author get to this completely different conclusion on overall consistency?
An answer does not have to only base on the text, but may also include other sources which might clear up how the statement is sound.
Reaching the summary of the memory section I got confused as the author sais:
To the best of my knowledge only the Big-Endians of Blefuscu have
built systems with a consistent order which works across
chunk-boundaries, registers, instructions and memories. I
failed to find a Little-Endians' system which is totally
consistent.
Which kind of contradicts his previous text sections covering little-endian:
e.g.
When they add the bit order and the byte order they get:
...|---word2---|---word1---|---word0---|
....|C3,C2,C1,C0|C3,C2,C1,C0|C3,C2,C1,C0|
.....|B31......B0|B31......B0|B31......B0|In this regime, when word W(n) is shifted right, its LSB moves into
the MSB of word W(n-1).
4
English text strings are stored in the same order, with the
first character in C0 of W0, the next in C1 of W0, and so on.
This order is very consistent with itself, with the Hebrew language,
and (more importantly) with mathematics, because significance
increases with increasing item numbers (address).
he even lateron sais:
The Big-Endians struck again, and without any resistance got their
way. The decimal number 12345678 is stored in the VAX memory in this
order:
7 8 5 6 3 4 1 2
...|-------long0-------|
....|--word1--|--word0--|
.....|-C1-|-C0-|-C1-|-C0-|
......|B15....B0|B15....B0|This ugliness cannot be hidden even by the standard Chinese trick.
How did the author get to this completely different conclusion on overall consistency?
An answer does not have to only base on the text, but may also include other sources which might clear up how the statement is sound.
Solution
The first statement says that there is a system that consistently uses the big-endian convention for various things (instructions, registers, etc.) The second statement says that the little-endian convention is more elegant ("consistent with itself").
How are these contradictory?
How are these contradictory?
Context
StackExchange Computer Science Q#1681, answer score: 3
Revisions (0)
No revisions yet.