Right, but I think it's fairly clear that they
were both talking about the same thing.
> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:16:43 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Addressing Scheme with 64 vs 63 bits
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
>
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:00:00 -0500, Paul Gilmartin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >...
> >>>I thought 31-bit was for compatibility with existing exploitation
> >>>of the sign bit; ...
> >>
> >>Nope, it was the use of a X'80' in the high-order byte of a fullword to
> >>terminate a variable-length parameter list (of fullwords).
> >>
> >"Nope"? Where do you perceive us to be in disagreement?
> >...
>
> There's a slight semantic difference. "Sign" vs. "flag". Two different
> uses of the same high order bit, neither of which is compatable with
> a 32 bit address.
>
> Pat O'Keefe
_________________________________________________________________
Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
