Re: [PATCH] Add extra logic required to detect endianness on Solaris

> Charles Bailey <cbailey32@bloomberg.net> writes:
>
>>  #if !defined(__BYTE_ORDER)
>> +/* Known to be needed on Solaris but designed to potentially more portable */
>> +
>> +#if !defined(__BIG_ENDIAN)
>> +#define __BIG_ENDIAN 4321
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +#if !defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN)
>> +#define __LITTLE_ENDIAN 1234
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +#if defined(_BIG_ENDIAN)
>> +#define __BYTE_ORDER __BIG_ENDIAN
>> +#endif
>> +#if defined(_LITTLE_ENDIAN)
>> +#define __BYTE_ORDER __LITTLE_ENDIAN
>> +#endif
>
> The existing support is only for platforms where all three macros
> (BYTE_ORDER, LITTLE_ENDIAN and BIG_ENDIAN) are defined, and the
> convention used on such platforms where BYTE_ORDER is set to either
> one of the *_ENDIAN macros to tell the code which byte order we
> have.  This mimics the convention where __BYTE_ORDER and other two
> macros are already defined with two leading underscores, and in such
> a case we do not have to do anything.  We make the final decision to
> use or bypass bswap64() in our ntohll() implementation based on the
> variables with double leading underscores.
>
> This patch seems to address two unrelated issues in that.
>
>  (1) The existing support does not help a platform where the
>      convention is to define either _BIG_ENDIAN (with one leading
>      underscore) or _LITTLE_ENDIAN and not both, which is Solaris
>      but there may be others.
>
>  (2) There may be __LITTLE_ENDIAN and __BIG_ENDIAN macros already
>      defined on the platform.  Or these may not have been defined at
>      all.  You avoid unconditionally redefing these.
>
> I find the latter iffy.
>
> What is the reason for avoiding redefinition?  Is it because you
> know the original values they have are precious?  And if so in what
> way they are precious?  If the reason of avoiding redefinition is
> because you do not even know what their values are (so that you are
> trying to be safe by preserving), what other things can you say
> about their values you are preserving?
>
> Specifically, do you know that these two are defined differently, so
> that defining __BYTE_ORDER to one of them and comparing it to
> __BIG_ENDIAN is a good way to tell if the platform is big endian?
>
> I would understand it if (2) were "we undefine if these are defined
> and then define them as 4321 and 1234 respectively, in order to
> avoid a compiler warning against redefinition of a macro", but that
> is not what I am seeing, so I am not sure what you meant to achieve
> by that "if !defined()" constructs.
>
> Thanks.