"Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Alexandre Julliard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Well, I'm not sure what Microsoft is trying to achieve here either... >> It doesn't seem a very good idea to put a standard PE signature on >> big-endian files, since they are not valid PE files. The current >> approach makes it possible at some point to support loading >> little-endian PE files on big-endian machines (which I suspect is what >> Microsoft is trying to do with that define). If you swap the signature >> in builtins then you will have no way of knowing whether you need to >> swap the rest of the header. > > Isn't Machine (IMAGE_FILE_MACHINE_xxx) field supposed to indicate that?
Not really; there's an IMAGE_FILE_BYTES_REVERSED flag though, maybe we should be setting that for big-endian. But of course you can't get at the flag without knowing the byte order of the DOS header... -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
