Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch > #116526 > unrolled thread
| Started by | quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-05-19 20:14 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-05-30 19:03 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 582 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch
Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-19 20:14 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-20 00:03 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-20 00:34 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-20 01:35 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-20 02:09 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-20 02:26 +0000
Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-20 05:38 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-05-20 08:10 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-20 08:36 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-05-20 10:37 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-20 11:04 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-05-20 17:01 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-20 17:30 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-20 15:03 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-05-20 18:07 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-20 19:03 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-05-20 21:45 +0200
Re: Byte order and BCD scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-21 14:36 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-20 22:50 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-05-21 00:37 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-21 02:18 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-21 06:29 +0000
Re: ancient virtual memory, Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-05-21 15:41 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-20 15:28 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-20 15:42 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-20 17:25 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-21 11:52 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-05-20 21:33 +0200
Re: Byte order and BCD anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-21 10:29 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-21 12:04 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-03 00:41 +0000
Re: Byte order and BCD (was: Concertina IV Has Arrived) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-06-03 17:13 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived Bernd Linsel <bl1-thispartdoesnotbelonghere@gmx.com> - 2026-05-20 10:42 +0200
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-20 15:32 +0000
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-05-20 17:47 +0000
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-01 01:14 +0000
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-06-01 02:20 +0000
2s-complement and byte order (was: BCD) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-06-01 07:47 +0000
Re: 2s-complement and byte order (was: BCD) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-06-01 16:04 +0000
Re: 2s-complement and byte order (was: BCD) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-06-01 18:01 +0000
Re: 2s-complement and byte order (was: BCD) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-06-01 18:26 +0000
Re: 2s-complement and byte order (was: BCD) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-02 01:22 +0000
Re: 2s-complement and byte order (was: BCD) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-06-02 01:57 +0000
Re: 2s-complement and byte order (was: BCD) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-02 17:04 +0000
Re: 2s-complement and byte order (was: BCD) quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-01 18:08 +0000
Re: 2s-complement and byte order (was: BCD) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-06-01 18:13 +0000
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-01 17:59 +0000
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-06-01 20:00 +0000
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-01 21:57 +0000
byte order (was: BCD) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-06-01 08:36 +0000
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-06-02 14:00 +0100
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-02 14:54 +0000
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 16:13 +0000
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-02 17:13 +0000
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-06-02 18:25 +0000
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-02 19:07 +0000
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-06-02 11:44 -0700
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-02 19:37 +0000
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-06-03 08:29 -0400
Re: BCD, was Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-02 17:09 +0000
bit order and byte order (was: BCD) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-06-02 15:59 +0000
Re: bit order and byte order (was: BCD) quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-03 00:37 +0000
Re: bit order and byte order (was: BCD) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-06-03 17:44 +0000
Re: bit order and byte order (was: BCD) George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-06-03 19:05 -0400
Re: bit order and byte order (was: BCD) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-06-04 12:45 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-06-02 22:00 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-03 00:21 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-03 01:03 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-03 01:52 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-06-03 13:54 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-03 15:33 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-06-03 17:36 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 11:53 -0500
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-06-03 19:22 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-09-05 22:10 +0100
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-06 09:20 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-06 11:47 +0200
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-06 12:17 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-06 15:24 +0200
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-06 14:41 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-06 19:20 +0200
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-06 23:51 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-07 10:10 +0200
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-07 18:22 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-07 23:24 +0200
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-07 22:00 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-08 11:25 +0200
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-08 16:02 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-08 20:32 +0200
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-08 19:03 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-08 20:59 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-07 02:40 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-09-06 19:33 +0100
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-09-07 15:57 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-07 17:00 +0000
Re: endian history, was BCD, was Concertina John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-09-08 13:24 +0000
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-05 08:17 +0000
Re: endian history quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-09-05 13:52 +0000
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-05 15:58 +0200
Re: endian history Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-05 14:55 +0000
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-05 17:24 +0200
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-05 16:57 +0000
Re: endian history quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-09-06 02:06 +0000
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-06 07:04 +0000
Re: endian history quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-09-06 18:38 +0000
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-06 21:50 +0000
Re: endian history quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-09-08 02:33 +0000
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-08 03:46 +0000
Re: endian history quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-09-08 17:31 +0000
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-08 20:13 +0000
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-09 00:22 +0000
Re: endian history quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-09-09 01:10 +0000
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-09 01:33 +0000
Re: endian history David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 11:06 +0200
Re: endian history Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-09-08 23:57 -0400
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-06 23:57 +0000
Re: endian history Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-09-06 17:31 -0700
Re: endian history Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-09-06 21:46 -0700
Re: endian history Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-07 13:57 +0800
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-07 15:23 -0700
OT writing direction Re: endian history Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-09-07 20:15 -0700
Re: OT writing direction Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-08 03:44 +0000
Re: OT writing direction Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-08 17:23 +0000
Re: OT writing direction Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-15 07:49 -0700
Re: OT writing direction Re: endian history Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-09-15 10:09 -0700
Re: OT writing direction Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-20 07:14 -0700
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-08 17:16 +0000
Re: endian history George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-09-09 20:22 -0400
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-10 01:25 +0000
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-10 12:09 +0200
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-15 09:19 -0700
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-07 02:35 +0000
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-07 18:14 +0000
Re: endian history Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-07 05:05 +0000
Re: endian history David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-07 10:32 +0200
Re: endian history quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-09-08 02:36 +0000
Re: endian history Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-09-07 20:21 -0700
Re: endian history David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-08 11:32 +0200
Re: endian history Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-09-08 08:31 -0700
Re: endian history Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2026-09-17 10:23 +0200
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-07 15:25 -0700
Re: endian history scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-06 13:57 +0000
Re: endian history BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-09-06 12:41 -0500
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-06 21:53 +0000
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-07 00:12 +0000
Re: endian history BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-09-06 23:34 -0500
Re: endian history anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-09-08 10:29 +0000
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-07 13:56 +0200
Re: endian history Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-07 23:54 +0300
Re: endian history Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-08 05:07 +0000
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-08 21:14 +0200
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-05 21:16 +0000
Re: endian history quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-09-06 01:55 +0000
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-06 02:09 +0000
Re: endian history quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-09-06 18:28 +0000
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-06 23:54 +0000
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-07 02:44 +0000
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-06 15:39 +0000
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-06 07:07 +0000
Re: endian history scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-06 14:00 +0000
Re: endian history antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-07 20:24 +0000
Re: endian history Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-09-07 16:58 -0700
Re: endian history quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-09-08 02:47 +0000
Re: endian history Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-09-07 20:23 -0700
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-08 03:49 +0000
Re: endian history scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-08 16:00 +0000
Re: endian history quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-09-08 02:45 +0000
Re: endian history John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-09-08 08:38 +0000
Re: endian history quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-09-09 01:12 +0000
Re: endian history anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-09-08 10:56 +0000
Re: endian history John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-09-08 13:34 +0000
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-08 21:23 +0200
Re: endian history anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-09-09 08:04 +0000
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-09 23:21 +0200
Base64 ISA (was: endian history) Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-09-14 12:39 -0400
Re: Base64 ISA Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-15 11:26 +0200
Re: endian history Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-08 19:30 +0000
Re: endian history anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-09-09 08:22 +0000
Re: endian history Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 14:55 -0400
Re: endian history Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-09-14 10:29 -0700
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-15 11:32 +0200
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-15 08:53 -0700
Re: endian history Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-14 17:32 +0000
Re: endian history Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-09-23 21:09 -0400
Re: endian history scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-28 15:09 +0000
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-14 23:29 +0000
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-15 12:49 +0200
Re: endian history anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-09-15 13:01 +0000
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-15 16:51 +0200
Re: endian history antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-16 04:41 +0000
Re: endian history Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-16 05:53 +0000
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-16 07:52 +0000
Re: endian history Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-09-16 07:29 -0700
Re: endian history scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-16 15:49 +0000
Re: endian history Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-09-16 10:48 +0200
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-16 16:21 +0200
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-18 00:38 -0700
Re: endian history Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-18 17:29 +0300
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-18 16:48 +0200
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-18 16:47 +0200
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-18 15:36 -0700
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-22 19:51 +0200
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-23 08:28 -0700
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-23 18:01 +0200
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-23 10:47 -0700
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-23 18:41 +0000
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-23 13:15 -0700
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-24 15:09 +0200
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-25 02:47 -0700
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-24 17:00 +0000
Re: endian history scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-24 18:35 +0000
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-25 03:19 -0700
Re: endian history Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-26 07:41 +0000
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-27 02:48 +0000
Re: endian history Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2026-09-26 23:49 -0400
Re: endian history Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2026-09-27 12:06 +0300
Re: endian history Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2026-09-27 06:14 -0400
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-27 23:57 +0000
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-28 14:33 +0200
Re: endian history David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-28 10:38 +0200
Re: endian history anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-09-28 08:50 +0000
Re: endian history David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-28 11:23 +0200
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-28 22:50 +0000
Re: endian history anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-09-29 06:11 +0000
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-27 17:47 +0000
Re: endian history John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-09-27 18:21 +0000
Re: endian history scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-28 15:13 +0000
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-28 13:05 -0700
Re: endian history David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-27 16:56 +0200
Re: endian history Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-09-27 20:01 -0700
Re: endian history Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-28 06:14 +0000
Re: arithmetic and endian history John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-09-28 14:08 +0000
Re: arithmetic and endian history anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-09-28 16:54 +0000
Re: arithmetic and endian history John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-09-28 21:46 +0000
Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-09-29 08:01 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-29 14:26 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-29 17:21 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-29 17:28 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-09-29 20:16 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-01 09:00 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-01 09:30 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-01 06:49 -0700
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-01 15:05 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-01 16:04 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-02 01:30 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-01 19:27 -0700
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-02 02:45 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-10-02 09:53 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-02 19:10 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-03 17:18 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-03 19:54 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-03 20:49 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-03 22:05 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-04 08:09 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-04 15:14 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-04 18:29 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-06 08:29 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-06 03:20 -0700
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-06 17:24 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-12 01:46 -0700
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-12 17:37 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-13 21:57 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-14 07:50 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-14 23:08 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-03 19:55 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-04 06:50 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-04 15:11 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-04 19:38 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-06 07:30 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-06 18:07 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-06 21:17 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-10-06 23:30 +0200
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-07 10:16 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-07 19:53 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-03 23:49 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-04 01:04 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-04 07:47 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-04 18:02 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-11-02 09:45 -0800
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-11-02 10:12 -0800
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-02 18:43 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:00 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-11-02 20:28 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-11-03 01:34 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-11-03 08:35 +0100
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-11-02 20:25 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-11-05 23:36 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-06 03:22 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-11-06 06:24 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-11-06 12:08 +0100
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-11-06 15:08 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-11-06 20:50 +0100
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-11-06 16:50 +0100
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-06 19:22 +0000
carry-in (was: two's complement and Flags) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-11-07 07:41 +0000
Re: carry-in (was: two's complement and Flags) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-07 12:09 +0000
Re: carry-in (was: two's complement and Flags) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-11-07 16:19 +0000
Re: carry-in (was: two's complement and Flags) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-07 18:20 +0000
6502 vs Z80 (was: carry-in) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-11-07 18:35 +0000
Re: carry-in (was: two's complement and Flags) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-07 22:38 +0000
Re: carry-in antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-08 18:52 +0000
Re: carry-in Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-11-07 10:17 -0800
Re: carry-in in history John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-07 19:00 +0000
Re: carry-in Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-07 22:37 +0000
Re: carry-in (was: two's complement and Flags) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-07 18:44 +0000
Re: carry-in (was: two's complement and Flags) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-07 22:33 +0000
Re: carry-in (was: two's complement and Flags) George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-11-08 02:55 -0500
Re: carry-in Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2026-11-08 07:50 -0500
Re: carry-in (was: two's complement and Flags) quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-11-09 02:09 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-06 15:28 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-07 02:36 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-11-07 13:52 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-11-06 10:51 -0800
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-11-02 19:14 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-11-02 20:37 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-11-03 01:36 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-03 15:09 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-03 06:59 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-04 03:01 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 03:36 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:39 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-04 18:06 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-04 18:20 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-11-04 21:53 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-11-04 23:08 +0100
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-11-05 08:14 -0800
Re: bad floating point, two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-05 17:26 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-06 08:28 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-10-04 07:57 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-10-04 08:14 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-04 09:49 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-04 11:22 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-10-02 10:01 +0000
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-02 21:19 -0700
Re: two's complement and Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-03 19:40 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-02 05:45 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-02 07:54 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-02 19:07 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-02 20:33 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-01 09:17 -0700
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-01 16:45 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-01 18:42 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2026-10-03 02:30 +0100
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-03 17:43 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2026-10-04 23:44 +0100
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-10-01 07:45 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-10-01 07:51 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-02 01:31 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-10-02 02:29 +0000
Re: Flags (Re: arithmetic and endian history) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-02 02:46 +0000
Re: endian history Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-09-28 08:45 -0700
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-29 03:15 +0000
Re: endian history scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-28 15:19 +0000
Re: endian history Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-09-28 14:37 -0400
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-29 22:47 +0000
Re: endian history David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-30 08:39 +0200
Re: endian history aph@littlepinkcloud.invalid - 2026-09-30 08:52 +0000
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-30 22:26 +0000
Re: endian history aph@littlepinkcloud.invalid - 2026-10-01 10:44 +0000
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-01 21:53 +0000
Re: endian history David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-02 11:11 +0200
Re: endian history BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-10-02 16:17 -0500
Re: endian history aph@littlepinkcloud.invalid - 2026-10-02 14:25 +0000
Re: endian history BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-10-02 16:46 -0500
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-03 02:43 +0000
Re: endian history BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-10-03 00:54 -0500
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-03 06:15 +0000
Re: endian history BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-10-03 18:51 -0500
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-04 02:35 +0000
Re: endian history Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2026-10-03 10:25 -0400
Re: endian history BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-10-03 16:59 -0500
Re: endian history George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-10-03 15:04 -0400
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-02 21:53 +0000
Re: endian history anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-01 07:34 +0000
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-01 07:00 -0700
Re: endian history anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-01 15:20 +0000
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-01 09:15 -0700
Re: endian history Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-01 19:23 +0300
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-02 21:31 -0700
Re: endian history anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-03 10:25 +0000
Re: endian history anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-01 16:36 +0000
Re: endian history scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-01 18:38 +0000
Re: endian history George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-10-01 15:17 -0400
Re: endian history anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-01 21:20 +0000
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-01 19:55 +0000
Re: endian history David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-02 11:21 +0200
Re: endian history Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-02 12:47 +0300
Re: endian history David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-02 12:57 +0200
Re: endian history Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-02 14:44 +0300
Re: endian history David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-02 15:28 +0200
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-03 05:29 -0700
Re: endian history EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-10-01 13:12 -0400
Re: endian history anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-10-01 17:41 +0000
Re: endian history BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-10-01 18:07 -0500
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-02 02:44 +0000
Re: endian history BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-10-01 22:06 -0500
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-02 18:05 +0000
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-02 18:00 +0000
Re: endian history BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-10-02 13:51 -0500
Re: endian history scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-03 14:14 +0000
Re: endian history EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-10-04 14:19 -0400
Re: endian history EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2026-10-04 13:59 -0400
Re: endian history aph@littlepinkcloud.invalid - 2026-10-02 15:18 +0000
Re: endian history BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-10-02 14:57 -0500
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-03 02:30 +0000
Re: endian history BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-10-03 05:26 -0500
Re: endian history Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2026-10-05 15:53 -0700
Re: endian history Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-06 08:18 +0000
Re: endian history George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-10-06 13:40 -0400
Re: endian history Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2026-10-06 10:49 -0700
Re: endian history Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-10-07 08:54 -0400
Re: endian history Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-10-08 18:33 +0000
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-03 04:44 -0700
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-22 18:16 +0000
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-22 20:27 +0200
Re: endian history Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-22 16:55 -0700
Re: endian history Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-16 16:17 +0000
Re: endian history scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-08 16:01 +0000
Re: endian history Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-09-08 21:17 +0200
Re: endian history MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-08 20:15 +0000
Re: endian history David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 11:08 +0200
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-20 18:13 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-20 07:21 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-21 00:06 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-21 07:03 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-21 13:42 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-21 18:32 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-21 22:21 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-22 07:35 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-22 15:48 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-22 21:22 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-23 09:28 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-23 17:01 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-23 18:37 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived Robert Finch <robfi680@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 14:15 -0400
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-23 20:01 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-23 16:19 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-23 16:38 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-23 08:36 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-23 16:46 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-05-23 19:33 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-23 20:03 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-05-23 20:09 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-23 22:15 +0000
Re: base+displacement, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-05-24 01:43 +0000
Re: base+displacement, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-24 03:10 +0000
Re: base+displacement, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-05-24 17:06 +0000
Re: base+displacement, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-24 13:57 +0000
Re: base+displacement, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-05-24 15:12 +0000
Re: base+displacement, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-24 16:44 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-24 13:30 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-05-24 15:24 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-24 16:39 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-26 15:13 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-24 13:32 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-24 13:49 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-24 14:14 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-24 09:32 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-24 17:16 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-24 17:32 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-24 21:39 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-24 22:07 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 15:22 -0700
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-25 10:23 +0200
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-25 14:28 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-25 17:18 +0200
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-25 16:43 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-25 19:20 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-25 20:32 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-25 22:51 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-25 20:32 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-25 23:00 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-26 08:27 +0200
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-05-26 22:09 +0200
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-26 20:54 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-05-27 10:59 -0400
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-27 18:19 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-06-01 14:51 -0400
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-02 06:19 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-02 07:47 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-06-02 17:50 +0200
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-02 19:10 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-03 00:55 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-06-03 10:42 -0400
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-03 18:36 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-06-04 23:46 -0400
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-06-05 08:36 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-06-07 15:05 -0700
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-08 01:19 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-08 09:25 +0300
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-06-08 11:45 +0200
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-06-08 17:44 -0400
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-06-11 15:14 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-06-11 13:43 -0400
Re: public domain, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-06-13 03:01 +0000
Re: public domain, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-06-13 05:49 -0400
Re: public domain, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-06-13 10:52 +0000
Re: public domain, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-06-13 14:20 +0000
Re: public domain, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-13 15:07 +0000
Re: public domain, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-06-13 17:25 +0000
Re: public domain, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-15 16:32 +0000
Re: public domain, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard) - 2026-06-14 19:14 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-08 17:11 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-06-08 06:05 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-06-08 07:30 -0700
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-08 15:19 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-08 22:51 +0300
Free software (was: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-06-08 16:18 +0000
Re: Free software Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-06-08 10:40 -0700
Re: Free software (was: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-08 22:43 +0300
Re: Free software (was: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-06-09 17:24 +0000
Re: Free software Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2026-06-09 21:15 +0200
Re: Free software Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-06-09 16:29 -0700
Re: Free software (was: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-06-10 06:01 +0000
Re: Free software Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-06-08 18:03 -0400
Re: Free software David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-09 10:06 +0200
Re: Free software Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-06-11 15:21 -0400
Re: Free software David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-12 13:02 +0200
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-06-08 09:18 -0400
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-03 21:24 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-06-05 15:07 -0400
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-06-06 08:57 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-07 16:42 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-06 01:37 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-06-06 07:57 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-12 01:57 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-26 08:18 +0200
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-12 01:04 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-05-25 15:27 -0400
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-25 16:49 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-25 20:34 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-25 20:02 -0500
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-26 18:02 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 14:28 -0500
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-25 16:34 -0500
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-25 23:05 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-05-26 15:29 -0400
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 19:13 -0500
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-25 20:26 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-25 22:49 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-05-26 05:39 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-05-25 20:32 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-25 22:59 +0000
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 15:24 -0500
Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-24 17:30 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-22 15:48 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-21 22:14 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-21 23:46 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-22 02:20 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-22 07:22 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-21 02:33 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-21 06:12 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-21 13:13 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-21 13:22 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-21 18:26 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-21 23:44 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-25 01:04 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-25 01:29 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-25 16:45 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-25 20:45 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-25 23:03 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-30 04:02 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-30 15:47 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-30 19:15 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-05-31 11:05 -0700
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-31 18:40 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-01 19:56 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-01 23:40 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-02 06:20 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-04 04:06 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-04 04:44 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-01 01:40 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-06-01 05:36 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-06-01 18:10 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 18:38 -0400
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-02 01:52 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-31 01:22 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-31 12:05 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-31 17:26 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-31 02:57 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-05-30 04:06 +0000
Re: Concertina IV Has Arrived MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-30 19:03 +0000
Page 23 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 30 Next page →
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 19:33 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <10usveq$bk9$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #116622 |
According to Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>: >The S/360 is a mess as far as dealing with conditions is concerned. >Or is there a great underlying principle involved, and I fail to see >it? I doubt it, for the following reasons: 1) I have not come across >any description that eplained the underlying principe, and in fact I >have come across few descriptions at all. 2) In the 62 years that >S/360 has been available, it has not found any successors in its >particular approach to conditions. I suspect the encoded condition bits in S/360 are a reflection of the expensive memory era in which it was created. If they had decoded condition codes, they'd have had to find more bits in the PSW to store them, and it was already quite full. I agree that nobody else did that, and in retrospect it was an overoptimization. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 20:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <1779566614-5857@newsgrouper.org> |
| In reply to | #116633 |
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> posted: > According to Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>: > >The S/360 is a mess as far as dealing with conditions is concerned. > >Or is there a great underlying principle involved, and I fail to see > >it? I doubt it, for the following reasons: 1) I have not come across > >any description that eplained the underlying principe, and in fact I > >have come across few descriptions at all. 2) In the 62 years that > >S/360 has been available, it has not found any successors in its > >particular approach to conditions. > > I suspect the encoded condition bits in S/360 are a reflection of > the expensive memory era in which it was created. If they had > decoded condition codes, they'd have had to find more bits in > the PSW to store them, and it was already quite full. S/360 would have been better off as defining PSW as a PSQW (128-bits) which would have alleviated several problems associated with running out of PSW space. > I agree that nobody else did that, and in retrospect it was an overoptimization. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 20:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <10ut1ii$1039$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #116636 |
According to MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid>: >> I suspect the encoded condition bits in S/360 are a reflection of >> the expensive memory era in which it was created. If they had >> decoded condition codes, they'd have had to find more bits in >> the PSW to store them, and it was already quite full. > >S/360 would have been better off as defining PSW as a PSQW (128-bits) >which would have alleviated several problems associated with running >out of PSW space. They'd also have been better off making the addresses 32 bits and not putting junk in the high byte, which caused endless pain later, but they were really really worried about making low end models with 8K bytes usable. Remember that the major reason for B+D addressing was that it let them have 16 bit address fields in instructions while keeping 24 bit flat addressing. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 22:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <1779574530-5857@newsgrouper.org> |
| In reply to | #116637 |
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> posted: > According to MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid>: > >> I suspect the encoded condition bits in S/360 are a reflection of > >> the expensive memory era in which it was created. If they had > >> decoded condition codes, they'd have had to find more bits in > >> the PSW to store them, and it was already quite full. > > > >S/360 would have been better off as defining PSW as a PSQW (128-bits) > >which would have alleviated several problems associated with running > >out of PSW space. > > They'd also have been better off making the addresses 32 bits and not > putting junk in the high byte, which caused endless pain later, but > they were really really worried about making low end models with 8K > bytes usable. > > Remember that the major reason for B+D addressing was that it let them > have 16 bit address fields in instructions while keeping 24 bit flat > addressing. B+X+D addressing only got 12-bits B+D addressing was for RS and SS instructions I think they thought they were saving on complexity and HW logic, but I think the whole RS and SS could have used a "more regular format pattern"; and they (IBM) would have been better off long term. But that was "Oh so long ago."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 01:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: base+displacement, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <10utl41$16pc$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #116638 |
According to MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid>: >> Remember that the major reason for B+D addressing was that it let them >> have 16 bit address fields in instructions while keeping 24 bit flat >> addressing. > >B+X+D addressing only got 12-bits >B+D addressing was for RS and SS instructions four bits of B, 12 bits of D, 16 bit addresses you're right that RX used another four bits. >I think they thought they were saving on complexity and HW logic, but We don't have to guess. "Architecture of the IBM System/360" by Amdahl, Blaauw, and Brooks in the IBM Systems Journal in April 1964 described a lot of the reasoning, and they wrote a whole book about it. They had to make a lot of other design decisions like 6 vs 8 bit bytes, ones- vs twos-complement, length fields vs word marks for variable length data, stack vs registers, floating point format (they blew that one). They said that the combination of a full length base register and a short displacement "gives consequent gains in instruction density. The base-register approach was adopted, and then augmented, for some instructions, with a second level of indexing." In retrospect, B+X+D was probably a mistake since I believe that double indexing is rarely used, and easy to do with an extra register add. On the other hand, it's not obvious what a better use of the X field would have been. I suppose they could have made instructions three operand, e.g. A Rx,Ry,B(D) would add the memory operand to Ry and put it in Rx but it was a long time until compilers could make good use of that. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 03:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: base+displacement, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <1779592227-5857@newsgrouper.org> |
| In reply to | #116639 |
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> posted: > According to MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid>: > >> Remember that the major reason for B+D addressing was that it let them > >> have 16 bit address fields in instructions while keeping 24 bit flat > >> addressing. > > > >B+X+D addressing only got 12-bits > >B+D addressing was for RS and SS instructions > > four bits of B, 12 bits of D, 16 bit addresses > you're right that RX used another four bits. > > >I think they thought they were saving on complexity and HW logic, but > > We don't have to guess. "Architecture of the IBM System/360" by Amdahl, > Blaauw, and Brooks in the IBM Systems Journal in April 1964 described a lot > of the reasoning, and they wrote a whole book about it. > > They had to make a lot of other design decisions like 6 vs 8 bit > bytes, ones- vs twos-complement, length fields vs word marks for > variable length data, stack vs registers, floating point format (they > blew that one). > > They said that the combination of a full length base register and a > short displacement "gives consequent gains in instruction density. The > base-register approach was adopted, and then augmented, for some > instructions, with a second level of indexing." > > In retrospect, B+X+D was probably a mistake since I believe that > double indexing is rarely used, and easy to do with an extra register > add. That is the view of MIPS and RISC_V That is not the view of x86 or ARM or My 66000 or Mc 88K > On the other hand, it's not obvious what a better use of the X > field would have been. I suppose they could have made instructions > three operand, e.g. > > A Rx,Ry,B(D) > > would add the memory operand to Ry and put it in Rx but it was a long > time until compilers could make good use of that. Agreed about time it took compiler to be taught how to use it. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 17:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: base+displacement, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <10uvb7c$21ju$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #116640 |
According to MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid>: >> In retrospect, B+X+D was probably a mistake since I believe that >> double indexing is rarely used, and easy to do with an extra register >> add. > >That is the view of MIPS and RISC_V >That is not the view of x86 or ARM or My 66000 or Mc 88K I suppose, but I don't think any of them reserved four instruction bits for an index register that's rarely used. On x86 it's one bit in the r/m field and arguably not even that since it's part of a three bit field that's overloaded as a register number, or in 32 bit mode one address form out of 8 that takes an extra byte for the base and index registers. Vax also had double indexing, but it was an extra prefix byte in the address field that said add register N scaled by the operand size to whaver other address followed, so there it was one addrsss mode out of 16. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 13:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: base+displacement, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <10uv03n$hsnq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #116639 |
On Sun, 24 May 2026 01:43:29 +0000, John Levine wrote: > In retrospect, B+X+D was probably a mistake since I believe that double > indexing is rarely used, and easy to do with an extra register add. On > the other hand, it's not obvious what a better use of the X field would > have been. I suppose they could have made instructions three operand, > e.g. > > A Rx,Ry,B(D) > > would add the memory operand to Ry and put it in Rx but it was a long > time until compilers could make good use of that. Since there were three-address machines back in the days before general registers, I am surprised to hear that they didn't know how to write compilers that made use of such a field. But the "better use of the X field" is obvious - make the displacement field 16 bits instead of 12 bits. Except, of course, that this would have killed the SS format of instructions. But I don't agree that B+X+D is a bad thing. An extra register add is an extra instruction. And it's not rarely used; it's used every time an array is accessed, and arrays are often accessed in inner loops! Of course, there are counterarguments. B+X+D, when used, involves an extra add inside the instruction. Doesn't that take time too? Wouldn't it be better to add just once at the beginning of the loop? The thing is, though, there's also *register pressure* to think about. Plus, the extra add inside the instruction just means a three-input add, and once one recalls how *multipliers* are designed, one realizes that this extra add, though it may still take time, does not take _much_ time. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 15:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: base+displacement, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <10uv4hg$q5i$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #116644 |
According to quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid>: >On Sun, 24 May 2026 01:43:29 +0000, John Levine wrote: > >> In retrospect, B+X+D was probably a mistake since I believe that double >> indexing is rarely used, and easy to do with an extra register add. On >> the other hand, it's not obvious what a better use of the X field would >> have been. I suppose they could have made instructions three operand, >> e.g. >> >> A Rx,Ry,B(D) >> >> would add the memory operand to Ry and put it in Rx but it was a long >> time until compilers could make good use of that. >Since there were three-address machines back in the days before general >registers, I am surprised to hear that they didn't know how to write >compilers that made use of such a field. Optimizing compilers largely meant Fortran, which came from the single address 70x series. Human programmers did all sorts of clever tricks but it took a while to get compilers to do it. It probably needed graph coloring register allocation which wasn't invented until 1980. >But the "better use of the X field" is obvious - make the displacement >field 16 bits instead of 12 bits. Except, of course, that this would have >killed the SS format of instructions. Or worse had some instructions with 12 bit displacement and some with 16 which would have been a programming nightmare. >But I don't agree that B+X+D is a bad thing. An extra register add is an >extra instruction. And it's not rarely used; it's used every time an array >is accessed, and arrays are often accessed in inner loops! A decent optimizing compiler will do strength reduction so there's a register pointing at the array and stepping through it. You're right about register pressure but with 16 registers it shouldn't be hard to find one for an inner loop value. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 16:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: base+displacement, condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <10uv9ta$lnic$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #116647 |
On Sun, 24 May 2026 15:12:48 +0000, John Levine wrote: > According to quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid>: >>But the "better use of the X field" is obvious - make the displacement >>field 16 bits instead of 12 bits. Except, of course, that this would >>have killed the SS format of instructions. > > Or worse had some instructions with 12 bit displacement and some with 16 > which would have been a programming nightmare. Of course, the z/Architecture does have instructions with 20 bit displacements as well as 12 bits. But unlike the case where only the SS instructions have a 12-bit displacement, it has a complete set of instructions in each size. And my Concertina II and IV also have 12, 16, and 20 bit displacements - but it uses a different set of registers as the base registers for each, and also has a complete set of instructions for each, thus avoiding the nightmare. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 13:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <10uuui2$hdud$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #116637 |
On Sat, 23 May 2026 20:09:54 +0000, John Levine wrote: > Remember that the major reason for B+D addressing was that it let them > have 16 bit address fields in instructions while keeping 24 bit flat > addressing. 12 bits, of course. And they felt that 12 bits were enough because memory was such an issue back then. In hindsight, of course having a two-bit condition code was a "mistake". But C hadn't been invented yet, so nobody knew there would be any real use for unsigned integers. And the PSW really was full - when IBM went to System/370, they had to repurpose a bit in the PSW that was already assigned to an existing feature, ASCII mode. Since nobody ever used it, however, using it instead for the System/370's "Extended Control Mode", wherein the PSW *did* get doubled in length was possible. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 15:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <10uv576$11rq$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #116641 |
According to quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid>: >On Sat, 23 May 2026 20:09:54 +0000, John Levine wrote: > >> Remember that the major reason for B+D addressing was that it let them >> have 16 bit address fields in instructions while keeping 24 bit flat >> addressing. > >12 bits, of course. And they felt that 12 bits were enough because memory >was such an issue back then. It was also to force all addresses to be base relative to make code relocatable. You should read the 1964 paper. It's not very long. Here's a copy: https://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/~vojin/CLASSES/EEC272/S2005/Papers/IBM360-Amdahl_april64.pdf >In hindsight, of course having a two-bit condition code was a "mistake". >But C hadn't been invented yet, so nobody knew there would be any real use >for unsigned integers. Sure they did. S/360 had separate unsigned versions of add and subtract instructions. The results were the same but the condition codes were different and the unsigned versions couldn't overflow. There were also arithmetic and logical shifts. >And the PSW really was full - when IBM went to System/370, they had to >repurpose a bit in the PSW that was already assigned to an existing >feature, ASCII mode. Since nobody ever used it, however, using it instead >for the System/370's "Extended Control Mode", wherein the PSW *did* get >doubled in length was possible. Yup. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 16:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <10uv9jt$llf4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #116648 |
On Sun, 24 May 2026 15:24:22 +0000, John Levine wrote: > Sure they did. S/360 had separate unsigned versions of add and subtract > instructions. The results were the same but the condition codes were > different and the unsigned versions couldn't overflow. Ah, I didn't remember that! John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 15:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <10v4dar$25hk0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #116649 |
On Sun, 24 May 2026 16:39:25 +0000, quadi wrote: > On Sun, 24 May 2026 15:24:22 +0000, John Levine wrote: > >> Sure they did. S/360 had separate unsigned versions of add and subtract >> instructions. The results were the same but the condition codes were >> different and the unsigned versions couldn't overflow. > > Ah, I didn't remember that! I just looked it up. It was, and is, the Add Logical instruction. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 13:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <10uuulp$hdud$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #116636 |
On Sat, 23 May 2026 20:03:34 +0000, MitchAlsup wrote: > S/360 would have been better off as defining PSW as a PSQW (128-bits) > which would have alleviated several problems associated with running out > of PSW space. It's not as if these problems were impossible to fix. Remember the System/370, and its Extended Control Mode? All they lost was the ability to switch the computer into an ASCII mode nobody ever used. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 13:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <10uuvl5$hqsj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #116642 |
On Sun, 24 May 2026 13:32:41 +0000, quadi wrote: > On Sat, 23 May 2026 20:03:34 +0000, MitchAlsup wrote: >> S/360 would have been better off as defining PSW as a PSQW (128-bits) >> which would have alleviated several problems associated with running >> out of PSW space. > Remember the System/370, and its Extended Control Mode? All they lost > was the ability to switch the computer into an ASCII mode nobody ever > used. Come to think of this, though, that fact doesn't make you wrong. They would have been better off defining it as 128 bits long in the first place, since one thing they _couldn't_ do with Extended Control Mode was change the condition codes from two bits to full NZVC, since user programs had to remain compatible. Of course, though, people must have been able to get C compilers working on z/Architecture, despite inefficiencies, or it wouldn't be possible to install Linux on those machines. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 14:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <10uv14g$ibju$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #116643 |
On Sun, 24 May 2026 13:49:26 +0000, quadi wrote: > Of course, though, people must have been able to get C compilers working > on z/Architecture, despite inefficiencies, or it wouldn't be possible to > install Linux on those machines. I did a search, and found that z/Architecture added add-with-carry, subtract-with-borrow, and LLGF and LLGH which appear to be UL and ULH in my architectures. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 09:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <2026May24.113207@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #116633 |
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:
>I suspect the encoded condition bits in S/360 are a reflection of
>the expensive memory era in which it was created. If they had
>decoded condition codes, they'd have had to find more bits in
>the PSW to store them, and it was already quite full.
Some additional possible reasons:
Most[1] architecture before the S/360 use ones-complement or
sign/magnitude representation for integers, and trap on overflow [2],
and I guess they have separate comparison instructions (I don't know
that much about these machines, so I may be wrong here). So there was
no need for flags indicating signed overflow (V), or unsigned overflow
(C). Having only two flag bits was good enough to represent the three
possible outcomes of a comparison.
[1] Zuse chose twos-complement in the early 1940s. I don't know if he
stuck with that in his later machines.
[2] Reading the IBM 704 manual, it just says for some instructions
that "Ac overflow is possible", but does not describe the
behaviour. For division, the IBM 704 has "divide or halt" and
"divide or proceed", so I guess that trapping in the modern sense
was not yet on the table.
S/360 also supports the trap-on-overflow behaviour for signed
arithmetics, but one can turn the trapping off. Arithmetic
instructions set the flags in different ways depending on whether they
are signed or unsigned. So S/360 has a separate add-signed (A) and
add-unsigned (AL) instruction; thanks to 2s-complement arithmetics,
when they don't trap, they produce the same result in the target
register, but different behaviour in the flags and in trapping.
I expect that this all costs in control logic, so more constrained
processors like the 6502 and the 8080 then later went with NCZV. The
PDP-11 too AFAIK, but that may be due to the features of the bit-slice
ALUs available when the PDP-11 was designed. These machines also did
not have as many encoding bits to waste on separate signed and
unsigned integer arithemetics, thanks to their very narrow memory
bandwidth.
The architectures before the S/360 do not provide support multi-word
integer arithmetic (unless you count the digit-serial and
character-serial machines), and S/360 does not, either. It takes
until 1990 for IBM to add ALCR (add with carry-in) to the
architecture. For architectures with smaller word sizes like the
PDP-11, the 6502 and 8080, the need for multi-word integer arithmetic
was much greater.
Interestingly, the IBM 704 has the ACL instruction, an unsigned
addition with carry-in, like the ESA/390's ALCR.
Bottom line: When the S/360 was designed, the design of 2s-complement
machines was in its infancy (if we ignore Zuse, and the S/360
designers may have ignored him), so it was not known how to design the
flags for them.
One other aspect that may have played a role is that various S/360
implementations included compatibility modes for earlier IBM models,
and the may have designed the flags with that in mind. However, given
the vast differences between a 36-bit machine with sign/magnitude
representation (IBM 704) and the S/360, implementing different flags
for the different architectures was probably just a minor
complication. Moreover, different S/360 models offer compatibility
for different older architectures, where the flags probably were
different.
Concerning the question about why IBM chose big-endian for the S/360.
I see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_704#Registers> that already
the IBM 704 used big-endian bit-numbering. As long as you only have
one width at which to talk to registers or memory, that's as good as
little-endian. It only becomes an issue if you talk to registers at
different widths (e.g., 32-bit and 64-bit Power(PC)), and likewise,
for memory it only becomes an issue when you talk to memory at
different widths; i.e., not word-addressed machines, but
byte-addressed machines.
For FP the machines have different widths from early on, but they tend
not to access the halves of a double-precision number, so the
difference between big- and little-endian rarely makes a difference
there.
Actually, one does see some effects of big-endian bit numbering in the
IBM 704, because the Accumulator has additional bits, and they are
called P and Q (with little-endian bit ordering starting with bit 0,
they would just be called 35 and 36). Also the 15-bit index registers
run from bit 3 (MSB) to bit 17 (LSB), not from 0 to 17.
- anton
--
'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.'
Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 17:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <10uvbpj$mbgj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #116646 |
On Sun, 24 May 2026 09:32:07 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote: > Most[1] architecture before the S/360 use ones-complement or > sign/magnitude representation for integers, and trap on overflow [2], It makes sense to trap on a floating-point overflow, but trapping on an integer overflow is usually a terrible idea. Before the System/360, it's definitely true that one's complement and sign- magnitude representations of integers were valid options for designers. I'm not sure of their relative frequency. I do know of a claim made by one maker of a 24-bit computer in its advertising literature, and I suspect it did represent the situation then. Sign-magnitude was what the IBM 704 and its descendants used. As a result, it was the... aspirational... integer representation. One's complement was very popular back then - simpler to implement than sign-magnitude, but almost equivalent, in some sense. Thus, one's complement was the preferred representation in the PDP-4, which also had a limited two's complement capability. And two's complement was the simplest to implement, and thus chosen where cost savings were paramount. So the PDP-5 used two's complement. And then the IBM 360 came along, and woke everyone up to the fact that there was no real reason to use anything but two's complement. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 17:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: condition bits, Concertina IV Has Arrived |
| Message-ID | <1779643930-5857@newsgrouper.org> |
| In reply to | #116652 |
quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> posted: > On Sun, 24 May 2026 09:32:07 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote: > > > Most[1] architecture before the S/360 use ones-complement or > > sign/magnitude representation for integers, and trap on overflow [2], > > It makes sense to trap on a floating-point overflow, but trapping on an > integer overflow is usually a terrible idea. So, detecting something went wrong and you should inform the programmer is a bad idea ??? > John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 23 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch
csiph-web