[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:0.175 / U:0.916 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site