| ??? 01/22/08 12:36 Read: times |
#149825 - Less non-portable Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I did indeed say "more portable". I use the same scheme to define bytes within long (32 bit) words, and this would allow mixed word-within-long and byte-within-word endianness. I haven't yet come across any such mixed implementation, so it seems adequate for the real world. If you really want an endianness headache, you can try configuring the byte swapper in a firewire link layer controller to work with a 16 bit little endian processor ;-) |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| SDCC, copying integer in ASM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Shift-and-mask, or union | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I used asm tag and the rr command but.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Your question | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Portable unions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Less non-portable? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Less non-portable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| portable, schmortable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Disagree! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| how portable? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| emphasis | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Real world portable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| using - does not give the same result | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| try this | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You are exceeeding 2 byte signed integer limits | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Fighting the tools | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks all. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Dangerous | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Very important warning! | 01/01/70 00:00 |