I think that the 68000 is a simple bigendian. On the other hand I worked with a system that used a 68000 on an Intel Multibus. This causes a few problems. The weirdest was that the tape controller swapped bytes, so we had to use "dd if=/dev/tape swab | tar ..." for everything.
-----Original Message----- From: John Summerfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: big and little endian On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, John Campbell wrote: > Please note that this has also been referred to as "byte sex" as well. > > Back (many years ago) I worked in a company where I ported their Business > BASIC interpreter to multiple platforms so the byte sex / endianness was > one of the first things characterized before we checked how complete the > Unix API was (there were some serious "Joe Isuzu Unix"es out there in the > mid-late 1980s). > > You learn a lot about portation requirements when you deal with some of the > weirder byte orders (like the NS32032 chip). Speaking of NS32K chips, > anybody down under remember "Labtam"? > Yep. Their office was next to mine in Canberra. Good salesman, hardly ever there;-) They used a 68000 processor - in a device controller. You reminded me: I found my old boss from about '71 and a couple of times ater on the 'net a couple of days ago. Wuz thinking I should point him at the Hercules project;-) -- Cheers John. Join the "Linux Support by Small Businesses" list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb Copyright John Summerfield. Reproduction prohibited.
