Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 2010/05/26 18:46:11:
>
> On Wed, 26 May 2010, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > 1) It silently breaks when neither of {__LITTLE_,__BIG}_ENDIAN (or both)are
> > defined depending on the endianess of the target CPU.
> > The glibc model generates a compile error if you forget to include __BYTE_ORDER.
>
> Umm. Except when it doesn't (yes, Linux has the "Wundefined" thing, and
> has had for a long time). I've seen the glibc model do the wrong thing
> exactly because traditional C semantics is "undefined symbol is 0 in
> evaluations"
>
> Try compiling this
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> #if NOT_HERE == NOT_THERE
> int main()
> {
> printf("Hello world!\n");
> }
> #endif
>
> and even with -Wall it compiles perfectly happily.
Ouch! But here -Wundef really helps.
>
> So no. The glibc model is _not_ any better in practice.
In the kernel it is since it breaks the compile. The breakage
my patch introduced is a sign of that, right?
>
> > 2) It clashes with user space so one cannot use it in exported header files.
>
> Which is annoying, I agree. But you shouldn't generally use kernel headers
> for user space anyway, much less export anything that is byteorder-
Not in general, but my case could have been avoided, I sure there are others
too. Why else does some header files bother with __BYTE_ORDER?
> specific. So anybody who has this problem is likely doing something iffy
> to begin with.
hmm, so then I guess the existing use of __BYTE_ORDER in the
kernel should be removed?
>
> Besides, you can solve it cleanly by simply avoiding the crazy glibc
> semantics entirely. IOW, the CONFIG_BIG_ENDIAN option I suggested (and
CONFIG_BIG_ENDIAN would have helped me with my lib/crc32.c problem
but it does not prevent silent breakage so I figured the glibc model
would be better.
Is it such a big difference, readability wise, between
#ifdef CONFIG_BIG_ENDIAN
and
#if __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
that you rather risk silent breakage?
> again, you should damn well not export things that depend on it to user
> space - there are architectures where user-space might be switchable)
Such arch exists but does any of them run linux in both modes?
Jocke
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
