![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The problem is, I don't know if I might have missed one or more of those places where I needed to do a conversion and the easiest way to see if I screwed up is to run the program on a big-endian architecture. Is this observation accurate, and if so, is it generally acceptable to make the assumption that Windows will always be running on little-endian hardware? Additionally, is it even possible (in 2011) to run Windows on a big-endian emulator or something, such that one could even test for endianness issues?Įdit: For additional clarity, the way my code currently works, I do an endianness check at startup time, and then every time I load a value off the disk, I run it through an inline function that uses an intrinsic to change endianness if the architecture is big-endian. However, I find myself wondering if I even need to worry about endianness conversions, since as far as I can tell, desktop Windows only supports little-endian architectures (IA32, x86-84, etc.), and therefore, the on-disk little-endian values are perfectly fine sans conversion. I'm writing a userspace filesystem driver on Windows and endianness conversions are something I've been dealing with, as this particular filesystem always stores values in little-endian format and the driver is expected to convert them (if necessary) for the CPU it's running on. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |