When removing some dead big endian checks in the RISC-V code Nick suggested that we should have some generic sanity checks. I don't think we should have thos inside the RISC-V code, but maybe it might make sense to have these in the generic byteorder headers. Note that these are UAPI headers and some compilers might not actually define __BYTE_ORDER__, so we first check that it actually exists. Suggested-by: Nick Kossifidis <mick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> --- include/uapi/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h | 4 ++++ include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h | 4 ++++ 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h b/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h index 2199adc6a6c2..34a5864526d2 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h @@ -2,6 +2,10 @@ #ifndef _UAPI_LINUX_BYTEORDER_BIG_ENDIAN_H #define _UAPI_LINUX_BYTEORDER_BIG_ENDIAN_H +#if defined(__BYTE_ORDER__) && __BYTE_ORDER__ != __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__ +#error "Unsupported endianess, check your toolchain" +#endif + #ifndef __BIG_ENDIAN #define __BIG_ENDIAN 4321 #endif diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h b/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h index 601c904fd5cd..0cdf3583e19f 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h @@ -2,6 +2,10 @@ #ifndef _UAPI_LINUX_BYTEORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN_H #define _UAPI_LINUX_BYTEORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN_H +#if defined(__BYTE_ORDER__) && __BYTE_ORDER__ != __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__ +#error "Unsupported endianess, check your toolchain" +#endif + #ifndef __LITTLE_ENDIAN #define __LITTLE_ENDIAN 1234 #endif -- 2.20.1
