RE: Byte-order in od -x (Win2K)

2005-06-28 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Dave Korn wrote: Probably TITTTL material, but... > Now, I'd certainly agree that short int is a strange default for od (as > indeed is octal, which it defaults to if you don't specify a base > explicitly); Why would octal be a strange default for a program called "octal d

RE: Byte-order in od -x (Win2K)

2005-06-28 Thread Dave Korn
Original Message >From: Fergus Daly >Sent: 28 June 2005 15:45 > > ("od -x .." outputs the strange transposition of bytes that you have > referred to.) It's not a 'transposition of bytes'. It's not bytes at all; "od -x" defaults to reading 16-bit short integers, and outputs them in hos

Re: Byte-order in od -x (Win2K)

2005-06-28 Thread Fergus Daly
>> Exactly the other way round ... ~> echo abcd | od -tx1 000 61 62 63 64 0a 005 is nice; and, for some purposes ~> echo abcd | od -An -tx1 61 62 63 64 0a (or "od -An -tx1 ") is nicer still. ("od -x .." outputs the strange transposition of bytes

Re: Byte-order in od -x (Win2K)

2005-06-28 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Andreas Eibach on 6/28/2005 7:36 AM: > Well, looks like a feature or a bug. :)) Feature. > > $ ls -hog CD0.dat > > -rw-r--r-- 1 0 Jun 28 14:46 CD0.dat > (minus r; w minus; r minus; minus r; minus minus) > > > and now ... > > $ ls