Re: Cohen's paper on byte order
From: Bryan Olson (fakeaddress@nowhere.org)
Date: 04/09/03
- Next message: TC: "Re: Why Micosoft products using RC4 failed"
- Previous message: baiyaan: "?? I can't post to this ng. Winrar encryption"
- In reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Next in thread: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Reply: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Bryan Olson <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 04:37:14 GMT
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> As an addendum to my previous post, I like to mention
> that the fact that in C one could define a data structure
> to access the individual bits clearly indicates that
> the physical bits in hardware has a natural numerical
> ordering. Therefore in any 8-bit chunk of hardware
> there is a bit with the lowerest address.
Flat out wrong. On most modern machines, the byte is the
smallest addressable unit. In C, bit-fields don't have
addresses. C leaves the layout of bit-fields up to the
compiler. Why wouldn't Shen spend the few minutes to look this
up, or try C's address operator on bit fields before posting
wrong information here?
-- --Bryan
- Next message: TC: "Re: Why Micosoft products using RC4 failed"
- Previous message: baiyaan: "?? I can't post to this ng. Winrar encryption"
- In reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Next in thread: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Reply: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Cohen's paper on byte order"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|