> > +uint64_t decode_big_endian(const uint8_t *data, size_t data_len) > > +uint8_t *encode_big_endian(uint64_t value, size_t data_len) > have you looked at osmo_load64le_ext of libosmocore? I think you don't need > these routines. and it applies to GSUP too.
Ah, nice. Hadn't seen those yet.
Oh well, I notice that the decode_big_endian() is more elegant to use than
osmo_load64be_ext(), since passing a length of less than 8 bytes to
decode_big_endian() writes the N least significant bytes, and allows this:
uint16_t val;
val = decode_big_endian(buf, sizeof(val));
It has the desired result. However this:
uint16_t val;
val = osmo_load64be_ext(buf, sizeof(val));
will write the bytes bound to the "wrong", most significant end of the
uint64_t, and only zero is written to val. So I would need to explicitly
use osmo_load16be().
Which is less elegant, isn't it? Is it about performance? Would changing
that behavior break anything besides bitrev_test.c? (It checks for exactly
this ordering)
I'd like to change only the osmo_loadXXbe_ext() function, so that it
writes the least significant bytes, like decode_big_endian() does. But
first, does it write the most significant end for a reason?
If it doesn't, we don't actually need to generate functions for each
integer size. Instead we can glorify the decode_big_endian() and
encode_big_endian(), made threadsafe, to become osmo_load/store*().
Right??
Except for bitrev_test.c, all callers I found (in my currently cloned few
source trees) use only the non-"_ext" functions, and would not be affected
by the change at all.
~Neels
P.S.: Holger, after I said to you that osmo_loadXXbe_ext is not less
elegant after all, I re-re-realized that it is indeed still less
elegant...
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
