Re: [PATCH] Detect endianness on more platforms that don't use BYTE_ORDER

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:48:58AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Charles Bailey <cbailey32@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > ---
> 
> Please sign-off your patches ;-)

Oops! Please consider this patch...

Signed-off-by: Charles Bailey <cbailey32@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> This swaps the precedence of BYTE_ORDER and __BYTE_ORDER from the
> original, which we may not want to.  It is easy for me to swap the
> order of if/elif to restore it, so it is not a big deal, though.

I think I swapped the precedence (semi-deliberately) because I found a
proposal to standardize the BYTE_ORDER variant. I claim that any
platform which provides both but with differing senses is somewhat
broken so I cannot see the precedence mattering much. I don't mind
either way.

Charles.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]