From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Charles Bailey Subject: Re: [PATCH] Detect endianness on more platforms that don't use BYTE_ORDER Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 17:58:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20140502165830.GA29339@hashpling.org> References: <20140502074917.GA25198@hashpling.org> <1399017329-25645-1-git-send-email-cbailey32@bloomberg.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 02 18:58:36 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WgGnE-0002nQ-2D for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 02 May 2014 18:58:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752421AbaEBQ6c (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 12:58:32 -0400 Received: from avasout06.plus.net ([212.159.14.18]:41873 "EHLO avasout06.plus.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752121AbaEBQ6b (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 12:58:31 -0400 Received: from turing.int.hashpling.org ([212.159.69.125]) by avasout06 with smtp id x4yU1n00A2iA9hg014yV96; Fri, 02 May 2014 17:58:30 +0100 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=TcUYtHgh c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=wpJ/2au8Z6V/NgdivHIBow==:117 a=wpJ/2au8Z6V/NgdivHIBow==:17 a=Ew9TdX-QAAAA:8 a=0Bzu9jTXAAAA:8 a=J0QyKEt1u0cA:10 a=8phGgmHQHDQA:10 a=N2sEI2mohSIA:10 a=BHUvooL90DcA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=BNFp--SqAAAA:8 a=9vfCiL69lqDeJfjtxnMA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=92rhvNbd_XgA:10 Received: from charles by turing.int.hashpling.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WgGn8-0007g6-FA; Fri, 02 May 2014 17:58:30 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:48:58AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Charles Bailey writes: > > > --- > > Please sign-off your patches ;-) Oops! Please consider this patch... Signed-off-by: Charles Bailey > This swaps the precedence of BYTE_ORDER and __BYTE_ORDER from the > original, which we may not want to. It is easy for me to swap the > order of if/elif to restore it, so it is not a big deal, though. I think I swapped the precedence (semi-deliberately) because I found a proposal to standardize the BYTE_ORDER variant. I claim that any platform which provides both but with differing senses is somewhat broken so I cannot see the precedence mattering much. I don't mind either way. Charles.