> On Dec. 7, 2012, 9:19 a.m., Cliff Jansen wrote:
> > This looks good from a portability perspective. But it must present a
> > performance penalty on big endian hardware, though I can't quantify the
> > amount. Are these functions not available on some platform?
>
> Andrew Stitcher wrote:
>
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 08:17 -0500, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Wouldn't it be cleaner to implement those functions as macros for the
> platforms that don't define it?
I think this is a misunderstanding - The platform in question is *ANSI
C* and this does not define any network to host byte order conver
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8385/#review14171
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Cliff Jansen
On Dec. 6, 2012, 11:10 p.m., And
> On Dec. 7, 2012, 9:19 a.m., Cliff Jansen wrote:
> > This looks good from a portability perspective. But it must present a
> > performance penalty on big endian hardware, though I can't quantify the
> > amount. Are these functions not available on some platform?
I'd actually be surprised if
Wouldn't it be cleaner to implement those functions as macros for the
platforms that don't define it?
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Cliff Jansen wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://revie
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8385/#review14146
---
This looks good from a portability perspective. But it must present
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8385/
---
Review request for qpid, Cliff Jansen and Rafael Schloming.
Description
---
