Am 30.05.2011 17:27, schrieb Derek Buitenhuis:
> On 11-05-30 10:28 AM, walter harms wrote:
>> The way it is printed does not take into account big/little endian,
>> is this adressed somewhere else ?
>>
>> re,
>> wh
>
> Could you perhaps elaborate a bit on what you mean by this?
> I have a vague idea what you're getting at, but clarity never
> hurts.
>
> As far as I can tell, this isn't related to my fix, but may be a
> problem regardless, and would be nice to fix.
>
> - Derek
>
+ printf("0x%.2jx, 0x%.2jx, 0x%.2lx, 0x%.2lx, 0x%.2lx, 0x%.2lx, ",
> + (uintmax_t)((sig >> 8) & 0xff), (uintmax_t)(sig & 0xff),
> (val >> 24) & 0xff, (val >> 16) & 0xff,
> (val >> 8) & 0xff, val & 0xff);
(val >> 24) & 0xff = hi
val & 0xff = lo
(maybe a simple %08x would do the same)
Ntl. the coding style (byte oriented) indicated that the "Signature" may be
different on big/little endian machines. i really have no idea but i learned
to take that (and others) as warning sign.
Obviously you took a look into this "Signature" stuff may be you have an idea
...
re,
wh
_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
