Hilko Bengen bengen@hilluzination.de writes:
@@ -46,6 +46,8 @@
#include "pshpack1.h"
+#include <endian.h>
endian.h is not portable, you should use the endianness defines from the Wine headers instead.
* Alexandre Julliard:
endian.h is not portable, you should use the endianness defines from the Wine headers instead.
So, do I need to define my own htobe16 and htobe32 functions or macros based on whether WORDS_BIGENDIAN is defined or not?
-Hilko
Hilko Bengen bengen@hilluzination.de writes:
- Alexandre Julliard:
endian.h is not portable, you should use the endianness defines from the Wine headers instead.
So, do I need to define my own htobe16 and htobe32 functions or macros based on whether WORDS_BIGENDIAN is defined or not?
Yes.
* Alexandre Julliard:
Hilko Bengen bengen@hilluzination.de writes:
So, do I need to define my own htobe16 and htobe32 functions or macros based on whether WORDS_BIGENDIAN is defined or not?
Yes.
I have tested these macros on Linux/PowerPC and they still produce the same results as on i386.
Is this form okay?
-Hilko
diff --git a/tools/sfnt2fnt.c b/tools/sfnt2fnt.c index df9260f..9ce503a 100644 --- a/tools/sfnt2fnt.c +++ b/tools/sfnt2fnt.c @@ -46,7 +46,20 @@
#include "pshpack1.h"
-#include <endian.h> +#if !defined(htole16) || !defined(htole32) +#include "basetsd.h" +#if defined(WORDS_BIGENDIAN) +#define htole16(_x) ( (((_x) & 0xff) << 8) | \ + (((_x) & 0xff00) >> 8) ) +#define htole32(_x) ( (((_x) & 0xff) << 24) | \ + (((_x) & 0xff00) << 8) | \ + (((_x) & 0xff0000) >> 8) | \ + (((_x) & 0xff000000) >> 24) ) +#else +#define htole16(_x) (_x) +#define htole32(_x) (_x) +#endif +#endif
typedef struct {
Am 15.06.2012 19:52, schrieb Hilko Bengen:
- Alexandre Julliard:
Hilko Bengen bengen@hilluzination.de writes:
So, do I need to define my own htobe16 and htobe32 functions or macros based on whether WORDS_BIGENDIAN is defined or not?
Yes.
I have tested these macros on Linux/PowerPC and they still produce the same results as on i386.
Is this form okay?
-Hilko
diff --git a/tools/sfnt2fnt.c b/tools/sfnt2fnt.c index df9260f..9ce503a 100644 --- a/tools/sfnt2fnt.c +++ b/tools/sfnt2fnt.c @@ -46,7 +46,20 @@
#include "pshpack1.h"
-#include <endian.h> +#if !defined(htole16) || !defined(htole32) +#include "basetsd.h" +#if defined(WORDS_BIGENDIAN) +#define htole16(_x) ( (((_x) & 0xff) << 8) | \
(((_x) & 0xff00) >> 8) )+#define htole32(_x) ( (((_x) & 0xff) << 24) | \
(((_x) & 0xff00) << 8) | \(((_x) & 0xff0000) >> 8) | \(((_x) & 0xff000000) >> 24) )+#else +#define htole16(_x) (_x) +#define htole32(_x) (_x) +#endif +#endif
typedef struct {
-intendation would make this more readable (even for review) -maybe one block per function
Hilko Bengen bengen@hilluzination.de writes:
- Alexandre Julliard:
Hilko Bengen bengen@hilluzination.de writes:
So, do I need to define my own htobe16 and htobe32 functions or macros based on whether WORDS_BIGENDIAN is defined or not?
Yes.
I have tested these macros on Linux/PowerPC and they still produce the same results as on i386.
Is this form okay?
You should pick different names to avoid possible conflicts.
* Alexandre Julliard:
Is this form okay?
You should pick different names to avoid possible conflicts.
Please have a look at the revised patch I just posted. I have avoided possible conflicts by only defining the macros if they are needed.
-Hilko
Hilko Bengen bengen@hilluzination.de writes:
- Alexandre Julliard:
Is this form okay?
You should pick different names to avoid possible conflicts.
Please have a look at the revised patch I just posted. I have avoided possible conflicts by only defining the macros if they are needed.
A different name is much better.
* Alexandre Julliard:
Please have a look at the revised patch I just posted. I have avoided possible conflicts by only defining the macros if they are needed.
A different name is much better.
Alright. Any suggestions?
-Hilko
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 07:52:50PM +0200, Hilko Bengen wrote:
+#define htole16(_x) ( (((_x) & 0xff) << 8) | \
(((_x) & 0xff00) >> 8) )+#define htole32(_x) ( (((_x) & 0xff) << 24) | \
(((_x) & 0xff00) << 8) | \(((_x) & 0xff0000) >> 8) | \(((_x) & 0xff000000) >> 24) )
You shouldn't really define macros that expand their arguments multiple times.
David
-
Alexandre Julliard -
André Hentschel -
David Laight -
Hilko Bengen