Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
03/24/10 03:17
Read: times


 		 #174453 - Someone already wrote up a good way....
Responding to: ???'s previous message
http://www.ibm.com/developer...tml?ca=drs-

Totally gets rid of endianess without knowledge of compiler whatsoever except it can make the program take longer to compute. Use Listing 6 to figure out endianess and then have the program call separate methods to reverse endianess. Alas, there is no easy way to make the code extremely legible without having multiple ifdefs sprinkled throughout the code (something the C language lacks). This would only make the code run faster, but if time is of no issue, using the above method is perfectly fine.

List of 23 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
Unions and position of bytes            01/01/70 00:00      
   Syntax and strategy problem.            01/01/70 00:00      
      wow that was quick and excellent thanks            01/01/70 00:00      
      Works a treat            01/01/70 00:00      
   Note that this is heavily compiler-reliant            01/01/70 00:00      
      Code for transparency            01/01/70 00:00      
         Agreed - after bitter experience            01/01/70 00:00      
            Compiler Specific            01/01/70 00:00      
               How many compler brands/versions to test for?            01/01/70 00:00      
                  Create a Compiler header            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Didn't we talk about unions - your examples doesn't...            01/01/70 00:00      
                        Someone already wrote up a good way....            01/01/70 00:00      
                           Incomplete byte order. But pad is still dangerous            01/01/70 00:00      
                              why bother?            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 how would you know?            01/01/70 00:00      
                                    Exactly my point... you don't            01/01/70 00:00      
                                       Never give up on portability - just decide the amount            01/01/70 00:00      
               Yes, but            01/01/70 00:00      
               why bother?            01/01/70 00:00      
      unions and portability            01/01/70 00:00      
         OT: use TR0 = 0; TMR0 -= offset; TR0 = 1;            01/01/70 00:00      
         you're not?            01/01/70 00:00      
            It was just a warning that union type casts are dangerous            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List