Re: [Libexif-devel] libexif/libexif exif-data.c, endianness

[Hans U. N. <gp...@n-...>]

"Jan Patera" <pa...@pi...> writes:

> I never remember which is little-endian and which is big-endian.

Same with me :-)

> And I must admit I didn't decipher the _be_ and _le_ letter in the
> function names :-(
>
> In any case Lutz's code was wrong:
> ==============
> static int
>    cmp_be_func (const void *elem1, const void *elem2)
>    {
>            return cmp_func ((const unsigned char *) elem1,
>                            (const unsigned char *) elem2,
> EXIF_BYTE_ORDER_INTEL);
>    }
>
>    static int
>    cmp_le_func (const void *elem1, const void *elem2)
>    {
>            return cmp_func ((const unsigned char *) elem1,
>                            (const unsigned char *) elem2,
> EXIF_BYTE_ORDER_MOTOROLA);
>    }
>
> ==============
> data->priv->order == EXIF_BYTE_ORDER_INTEL ? cmp_le_func : cmp_be_func
> ==============
>
> Are you saying I should have changed bodies of cmp_le_func & cmp_be_func
> instead?

I would have renamed the definition of the functions and exchanged
"be" and "le" :-)

But, after seeing the complete code in question, I'd just do away
completely with "be" and "le", and call it "cmp_intel_func" and
"cmp_motorola_func".

OK, let's wait for the CVS server to come back online.

Uli