[Default] On 14 Jun 2017 14:57:21 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main [email protected] (Frank Swarbrick) wrote:
>I won't try to justify EBCDIC, but big-endian rules! :-) > Unfortunately, little-endian which comes from the same warped thinking that went into the COND JCL statement seems to be ubiquitous. Little-endian is illogical and a royal pain in so many ways. The developers of it should be ashamed of themselves. Clark Morris >________________________________ >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of >Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 3:44 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: RFE? xlc compile option for C integers to be "Intel compat" or >Little-Endian > >On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:29:22 +0000, Frank Swarbrick wrote: > >>There are big-endian machines other than z. Shouldn't you investigate how >>the issue is dealt with outside of z before asking for z exclusive language >>extensions? >> >Yes. But big-endian is a vanishing breed. Motorola 68K is gone; PowerPC is >mostly gone, and its endianness was selectable. There's little interest in >Sparc. Others? > >Dismayinglly, big-endian may come to be perceived as the same sort >of lunatic fringe as EBCDIC, and support will evaporate with the scarcity >of testing platforms. But the EBCDIC nightmare can be avoided: Linux >runs fine on z hardware. > >-- gil > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
