Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Jan Engelhardt
Date: Friday, October 5, 2007 - 12:43 pm

On Oct 5 2007 14:35, Timur Tabi wrote:

Bit representation is left to the CPU, so 1 << 1 will always be 2,
regardless of whether the byte, when sent out to the network,
is 01000000 or 00000010. Endianess becomes important as soon
as the packet is on the network, of course.
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
__LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 11:27 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jan Engelhardt, (Fri Oct 5, 11:35 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 12:35 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jan Engelhardt, (Fri Oct 5, 12:43 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 12:47 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 1:04 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 1:07 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, linux-os (Dick Johnson), (Fri Oct 5, 1:34 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 1:37 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Anton Altaparmakov, (Fri Oct 5, 2:06 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 2:10 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 2:17 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 2:29 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Fri Oct 5, 2:32 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Andreas Schwab, (Fri Oct 5, 4:17 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Benjamin Herrenschmidt, (Fri Oct 5, 4:27 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Lennart Sorensen, (Tue Oct 9, 10:46 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Tue Oct 9, 10:56 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Lennart Sorensen, (Tue Oct 9, 11:34 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 11:50 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Tue Oct 9, 11:57 am)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Oct 9, 12:11 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 12:37 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 12:39 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Timur Tabi, (Tue Oct 9, 12:44 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Oct 9, 2:40 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 3:11 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Oct 9, 3:34 pm)
Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD, linux-os (Dick Johnson), (Wed Oct 10, 5:05 am)