lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Linux/IA-64 byte order
From
On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 22:44:22 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvards wrote:
>
> No, I'm arguing AGAINST using BE.
>
> I know there are folks out there who like BE, but let's just face it: the
> PC platform is LE, and will stay so. Going to mixed-mode just because
> misguided people like the old BE format is not an option I am willing to
> entertain.
>
> The computing world would be better off with just one byte order, that
> byte order isn't going to be BE.
>
> Linus
>

Take it easy, BE folks, LE is better, because i.e. error detection
of network protocols, which are normally BE. If you coders forget to
swap a single short, LE will easily show up (aka. won't work).

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

If Linus had started his project on a Mac, this world would think
the other way around. (Isn't Transmeta working on a 86xxx clone?)

I feel for you. Linus, because I can imagine, that you can't simply
switch of the brain-inherent byte swapper. But isn't it terrible to
remember the data structures (at least the difference between strings
and more than 8 bit values). If we stick now on LE, I would vote for
redefining the network byte order on the long run...

Hans-Peter

(who ported some protocol stuff from BE to LE, some time ago)
(knowing now the deficits of C preprocessor macros for that reason)


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.057 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site