Subject: Re: [PATCH] Detect endianness on more platforms that don't use BYTE_ORDER

From: Charles Bailey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 17:58:30 +0100

On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:48:58AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Charles Bailey <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > ---
> 
> Please sign-off your patches ;-)

Oops! Please consider this patch...

Signed-off-by: Charles Bailey <[email-masked]>

> This swaps the precedence of BYTE_ORDER and __BYTE_ORDER from the
> original, which we may not want to.  It is easy for me to swap the
> order of if/elif to restore it, so it is not a big deal, though.

I think I swapped the precedence (semi-deliberately) because I found a
proposal to standardize the BYTE_ORDER variant. I claim that any
platform which provides both but with differing senses is somewhat
broken so I cannot see the precedence mattering much. I don't mind
either way.

Charles.