On 05/03/15 01:01, David Holmes wrote: > I'm only glancing at parts of this ... > > On 5/03/2015 6:21 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> John's suggestion works well; the code is smaller and neater. >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/unaligned.jdk.3/ > > This doesn't make sense to me: > > 929 // The byte ordering of this machine > 930 public final static boolean LITTLE_ENDIAN = false; > 931 public final static boolean BIG_ENDIAN = true; > > as they won't necessarily represent "this" machine! And the usage: > > ! private static final ByteOrder byteOrder > ! = unsafe.getByteOrder() == Unsafe.LITTLE_ENDIAN ? > ByteOrder.LITTLE_ENDIAN : ByteOrder.BIG_ENDIAN; > > suggests getByteorder() is really isBigEndian() (which the hotspot part > confirms) - so then the two constants can be removed completely: > > private static final ByteOrder byteOrder > = unsafe.isBigEndian() ? ByteOrder.BIG_ENDIAN : > ByteOrder.LITTLE_ENDIAN;
Indeed, I was thinking of giving that method a better name. Works for me. Andrew.
