On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 10:39:03PM -0700, acmay at acmay.homeip.net wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 09:20:50PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 04:43:33PM -0400, Dan Malek wrote: > > > andrew may wrote: > > > > I would think everything in arch/ppc/boot/utils should be checked > > > > for endian problems on cross compiles. > > > > > > Are the network-host macros the right things to use? That's what > > > always comes to mind for me, but I suspect there is a more standard > > > set of macros from 'endian.h' or something........If it's OK with > > > everyone I'll check it in, but it does look kind of weird. > > > > Well, after some quick digging, here's what I found. If we include > > <asm/byteoder.h>, and deal with some __'s, which are exported outside > > One problem with trying this is that <asm/byteoder.h> will only be for > the target, not the compiling host. I think mktree should stick with > standard userspace include headers and stay away from kernel headers.
Er. No, <asm/byteorder.h> _should_ be a userspace header. At least on Linux.. For BSD (and Linux with _USE_BSD) we can use sys/types.h and get back a __BYTE_ORDER, I _think_... -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
