Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:16:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Neil Bradley <nb@synthcom.com> Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 64bit integer problem? Message-ID: <20070919011453.U55860@synthcom.com> In-Reply-To: <1153.87.234.225.18.1190189325.squirrel@webmail.alpha-tierchen.de> References: <20070918182508.V24397@fw.reifenberger.com> <46F0064C.3080702@uchicago.edu> <20070918220327.V25238@fw.reifenberger.com> <20070918151418.Y51724@synthcom.com> <62362.2001:6f8:101e:0:20e:cff:fe6d:6adb.1190154987.squirrel@webmail.alpha-tierchen.de> <20070918153651.G51724@synthcom.com> <1153.87.234.225.18.1190189325.squirrel@webmail.alpha-tierchen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> There is only one architecture (ARM), several families (i.e. ARMv4,
> ARMv5), and many implementations (XScale, ARM9, ARM7, ARM11). The ARM
> architecture doesn't define specific endianess, but commonly known
> implementations provide both endianesses.
If the architecture supports both, then it really doesn't matter. PowerPC
is a "big endian" architecture, but supports little endian.
>> None of the ARM architectures I've worked with (XScale, ARM9, ARM7,
>> ARM11) have ever come up by default in big endian.
> This is correct behaviour. The reference manual demands little endian as
> default if both are implemented.
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?
-->Neil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Neil Bradley - KE7IXP - The one eyed man in the land of the blind is not
king. He's a prisoner.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070919011453.U55860>