On 06/26/2015 01:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 06/09/2015 10:20 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Because some folks don't want to audit their code to where to add
byteswaps.
I am serious people have legacy big-endian code they want to run little
endian. There is a reason this is around in the first place. Developers
are
lazy.
That's a little rough, but essentially correct in our experience.
Agreed on both points. These legacy codebases can be large and full
auditing may not really be that feasible.
Well - they need a full audit anyway to slap those endian attributes on the
appropriate structures. We are not, after all, introducing a -fbig-endian
switch.
The cases I'm aware of would *love* a -fbig-endian switch :-)
"Legacy code base" and "new compiler feature" don't mix in my mind.
Assume the legacy platform didn't use GCC (because GCC wasn't a viable
option way back when the now legacy platform was state-of-the-art),
while the new platform will use GCC and will have an endianness change.
In that case features to ease the pain of migration make a goodly
amount of sense.
jeff
