Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #4773
| From | "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| References | <lv2rp2$e89$1@speranza.aioe.org><m9su0868osqi.od5en2j049hq$.dlg@40tude.net><lv4qee$nra$1@speranza.aioe.org><1szke6pe4wjgd$.wpsri6v7srjm.dlg@40tude.net><87iokpkj4a.fsf@bsb.me.uk><1ttpptlnkgub7.1j69kxtbpmeax$.dlg@40tude.net> <87sijt40ni.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| Subject | Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess |
| Date | 2014-09-15 13:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Sb-dnRQAdN6AfIvJnZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@bt.com> (permalink) |
Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Are there any languages where the basic types *do* care about
> endianness? What would that look like from the point of view of the
> program?
I've never heard of one, and it'd have to be pretty odd, since the underlying
machine instruction set doesn't care about it either.
I don't know of any circumstances where endianness is even /visible/ except
where treating the same physical storage as if it had multiple types (e.g.
treating an integer as a string of bytes, or a double as an integer (not
casting, but getting at the underlying binary representation)). The biggest
example of such aliassing is, of course, IO.
-- chris
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-09-13 21:41 -0400
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2014-09-14 09:14 +0200
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-09-14 15:31 -0400
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2014-09-14 21:38 +0200
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-09-14 22:05 +0100
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2014-09-15 09:40 +0200
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-09-15 11:51 +0100
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2014-09-15 13:49 +0100
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2014-09-15 17:16 +0200
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-09-15 22:23 +0100
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2014-09-16 10:44 +0200
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-09-16 00:18 +0000
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2014-09-15 06:18 -0500
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-09-15 14:23 -0400
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2014-09-15 21:08 +0200
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-09-15 19:32 -0400
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-09-15 21:07 +0100
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-09-15 21:48 -0400
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess Jongware <jongware@no-spam.plz> - 2014-09-15 10:57 +0200
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2014-09-15 14:06 +0100
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-09-15 21:50 -0400
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2014-09-17 09:54 +0100
Re: gcc-4.x.x and endianess "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-09-17 22:29 -0400
csiph-web