3 ms·
Nice, didn't know that. Seems a bit unfair though they didn't cover middle-endian order. Seriously though, how many machines are configured like that in the re
by apankrat 7y ago
Nice, didn't know that. Seems a bit unfair though they didn't cover middle-endian order.
Seriously though, how many machines are configured like that in the real world and what's the overlap with our target installation base?
- chrisseaton 7y agoNo idea - but it's something to keep in mind if you have the assumption in your head that 'byte order is constant for a machine'.
- apankrat 7y agoIt almost universally is though, no? I'd expect a processor core with inverted endianness to be excluded from the general use and reserved for select processes that require that feature.
- chrisseaton 7y agoI don’t think so - it’s just another processor flag and processes can switch it as needed. For example you could switch while reading data from a network connection and back again afterward.
- apankrat 7y agoIt'd be interesting to see any real-world uses of this. Must be something rather exotic that could benefit from not doing bswap/s in bulk.
- tlb 7y agoI used to be careful to use Network Byte Order (defined in some RFC as big-endian) for everything. But for the last several years I use native byte order, and I haven't been sorry yet. It's significantly faster and simpler for x86, and big-endian systems are very rare these days.