[Top] [All Lists]

Re: big/little endian

To: jeremy@sw.oz.au (Jeremy Fitzhardinge)
Subject: Re: big/little endian
From: tor@tss.no (Tor Arntsen)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 15:23:30 +0200
Cc: riscy@pyramid.com
In-reply-to: jeremy@sw.oz.au (Jeremy Fitzhardinge) "Re: big/little endian" (Jun 24, 9:13pm)
Jeremy Fitzhardinge:
> Tor Arntsen bubbles:
> > I would prefer big endian, but I have no strong objections (that means, I 
> > will
> > buy the board anyway) if it ends up the other way (the DEC/Intel way vs. 
> > the rest of the world.. :-) :-)
> Given a free hand, I would prefer big endian.  However, I think there
> are a few compelling reasons to go little endian -- all to do with
> compatability with the Intel version.  Choosing bigendian wouldn't
> make it impossible, but it does offer a whole pile extra places for
> things to go wrong.  If we can make code like this work without
> problems, wrong as it is, it would be helpful:
> #ifdef linux  /* linux runs on intel only */
> #define little_endian
> #endif
> There are a number of places where it would be good to keep the same format
> to the bit level on all Linux architectures:
> Also, it would be nice to get the experiences of those doing 68k ports.
> I'm told they exist, but I have no references.  Does anyone have names
> or addresses?
> Gotta rush,
>       J

I'm 'lurking' on the 680X0 mailing list, they seem to be going forward.
Hamish (H.I.) Macdonald (hamish@bnr.ca) is the Amiga coordinator and
central source manager.  He has done most of the kernel porting I think.

Arno Griffioen (arno@usn.nl) is a general coordinator (coordinating who's
doing what etc.)

They certainly have to face the big/little endian problem up front..



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>