[lkml]   [1999]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux/IA-64 byte order
    Linus Torvalds writes:
    > In article <199903090013.LAA21453@vindaloo.atnf.CSIRO.AU>,
    > Richard Gooch <> wrote:
    > > Hi, all. I've been discussing the byte order that Linux/IA-64 will
    > >have with David Mosberger from HP. I'm arguing for big-endian to be
    > >used.
    > Not a chance in hell.

    Hm. I got your attention :-)

    > The whole point of IA-64 is to run x86 binaries while still being
    > able to do large data-sets (if you didn't want to run x86 binaries
    > you should just buy an alpha instead, and forget about IA-64).

    Ah, I see.

    > And I'm not going to accept a IA-64 port that does big-endian IA-64
    > mode and little-endian x86 mode. That's just too ugly for words.

    Yes, given the x86 compatibility, I agree with that.

    > >I implore you: please reconsider your decision. Don't punish Linux
    > >because of the x86 legacy.
    > Buy an ultra64 if you need big-endian and 64 bits. Really.

    Sigh. Or MIPS. It's a shame, but I have to agree with your
    reasoning. I hadn't considered the x86 compatibility aspect.

    > Mixing endianness on the fly is certainly possible, but stupid
    > unless you have some REALLY good reason for it. And quite frankly,
    > there are NEVER any good technical reasons for considering one
    > endianness over another (it's a completely arbitrary thing).

    Yes, it is, although I don't get to choose the binary format of
    data. And memory mapping is so much better than plain reading.

    Anyway, nevermind.



    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.022 / U:69.636 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site