Re: Cohen's paper on byte order
From: Mok-Kong Shen (email@example.com)
From: Mok-Kong Shen <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 13:21:58 +0200
Bryan Olson wrote:
> 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?
In any machine, the byte has a lower order bit and
a higher order bit (one near the lower end and the
higher end of the computer storage). Using a mask, one
can access the bits from one end of the byte to the
other. So where is the problem??
M. K. Shen