From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] eal: detect endianness
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:00:09 +0100
Message-ID: <3580620.HEA1jLh5UM@xps13>
References: <283531301.lWbIahXLyM@xps13>
 <1417639668-23500-2-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
 <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E60286C9C86D@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org, Chao Zhu <chaozhu-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
To: "Qiu, Michael" <michael.qiu-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E60286C9C86D-0J0gbvR4kThpB2pF5aRoyrfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>

2014-12-04 02:28, Qiu, Michael:
> On 12/4/2014 5:26 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > There is no standard to check endianness.
> > So we need to try different checks.
> > Previous trials were done in testpmd (see commits
> > 51f694dd40f56 and 64741f237cf29) without full success.
> > This one is not guaranteed to work everywhere so it could
> > evolve when exceptions are found.
[...]
> >  #include <stdint.h>
> > +#ifdef RTE_EXEC_ENV_BSDAPP
> > +#include <sys/endian.h>
> > +#else
> > +#include <endian.h>
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Compile-time endianness detection
> > + */
> > +#define RTE_BIG_ENDIAN    1
> > +#define RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN 2
> > +#if defined __BYTE_ORDER
> > +#if __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
> > +#define RTE_BYTE_ORDER RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> > +#elif __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
> > +#define RTE_BYTE_ORDER RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> > +#endif /* __BYTE_ORDER */
> > +#elif defined __BYTE_ORDER__
> > +#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
> > +#define RTE_BYTE_ORDER RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> > +#elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
> > +#define RTE_BYTE_ORDER RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> > +#endif /* __BYTE_ORDER__ */
> > +#elif defined __BIG_ENDIAN__
> > +#define RTE_BYTE_ORDER RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> > +#elif defined __LITTLE_ENDIAN__
> > +#define RTE_BYTE_ORDER RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> > +#endif
> 
> What do you think about :
> 
> +/*
> +  * Compile-time endianness detection
> + */
> +#define RTE_BIG_ENDIAN 1
> +#define RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN 2
> +if defined __BYTE_ORDER__    /* Prefer gcc build-in macros */
> +#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
> +#define RTE_BYTE_ORDER RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> +#elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
> +#define RTE_BYTE_ORDER RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> +#endif /* __BYTE_ORDER__ */
> +#else
> +#if defined RTE_EXEC_ENV_BSDAPP
> +#include <sys/endian.h>
> +#else
> +#include <endian.h>
> +#endif
> +#if defined __BYTE_ORDER
> +#if __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
> +#define RTE_BYTE_ORDER RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> +#elif __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
> +#define RTE_BYTE_ORDER RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> +#endif /* __BYTE_ORDER */
> +#elif defined __BIG_ENDIAN__
> +#define RTE_BYTE_ORDER RTE_BIG_ENDIAN
> +#elif defined __LITTLE_ENDIAN__
> +#define RTE_BYTE_ORDER RTE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
> +#endif
> +#endif

Please, could you give more explanations about your proposal?
Why not always try to include endian.h?
Why giving high priority to __BYTE_ORDER__?

-- 
Thomas