Re: [PATCH 1/3] sha1dc: update from my PR #36

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 27, 2017, 19:38 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqy3sdz0f6.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <87r2y5jkb6.fsf@gmail.com>

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

>>> And since Solaris defines _BYTE_ORDER we never get to checking __sparc,
>>> and in fact the "/* byte order is bendian */" test errors out.
>>> ...
>> Well, if Solaris defines _BYTE_ORDER, doesn't that mean they define
>> two constants _BIG_ENDIAN and _LITTLE_ENDIAN to compare it with?
>
> No, under gcc/clang & glibc you're expected to compare them. Under
> Solaris it's just defined(_BIG_ENDIAN), but as explained in another
> comment this whole thing actually turns out to be not needed, on Solaris
> it's sufficient that we fall through and check __sparc.

Huh. It makes me wonder what we are expected to use _BYTE_ORDER on Solaris for, then, if it defines _BIG_ENDIAN and _BYTE_ORDER, and still wants us to use the definedness of _BIG_ENDIAN. It does not make any sense.

But if we can use __sparc and fold it into various arm/mipts bits, that is much simpler ;-)