similar to: [LLVMdev] Endianness emulation

On 02/02/2011 19:53, Lally Singh wrote: > To answer my own question. The problem is that Solaris ships with > very old tools, and llvmc was generating assembler that worked with a > fresh (gcc-4.5) compile& install. I had them handy, just further > down the path. Hopefully anyone with the same problem can find this > in the archive. > I think llvm isn't ported to

Well, then I'm royally screwed. What would I have to add to make it work, if only for a very limited subset of cases? On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> wrote: > On 02/02/2011 19:53, Lally Singh wrote: >> >> To answer my own question.  The problem is that Solaris ships with >> very old tools, and llvmc was generating assembler that worked

To answer my own question. The problem is that Solaris ships with very old tools, and llvmc was generating assembler that worked with a fresh (gcc-4.5) compile & install. I had them handy, just further down the path. Hopefully anyone with the same problem can find this in the archive. Thanks everyone. On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Lally Singh <lally.singh at gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:11:34PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:21:22 +0200 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 06:09:41PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote: > > > The default use case for vhost is when the host and the vring have the > > > same endianness (default native endianness). But there

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:11:34PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:21:22 +0200 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 06:09:41PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote: > > > The default use case for vhost is when the host and the vring have the > > > same endianness (default native endianness). But there

On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:19:16 +0200 Greg Kurz <gkurz at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > This patch brings cross-endian support to vhost when used to implement > legacy virtio devices. Since it is a relatively rare situation, the > feature availability is controlled by a kernel config option (not set > by default). > > The vq->is_le boolean field is added to cache the

On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:19:16 +0200 Greg Kurz <gkurz at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > This patch brings cross-endian support to vhost when used to implement > legacy virtio devices. Since it is a relatively rare situation, the > feature availability is controlled by a kernel config option (not set > by default). > > The vq->is_le boolean field is added to cache the

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 06:09:41PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote: > The default use case for vhost is when the host and the vring have the > same endianness (default native endianness). But there are cases where > they differ and vhost should byteswap when accessing the vring: > - the host is big endian and the vring comes from a virtio 1.0 device > which is always little endian > -

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 06:09:41PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote: > The default use case for vhost is when the host and the vring have the > same endianness (default native endianness). But there are cases where > they differ and vhost should byteswap when accessing the vring: > - the host is big endian and the vring comes from a virtio 1.0 device > which is always little endian > -

I need to add the opus audio codec to my TI TMS320C6455 DSP. The chip is configured for big-endian format and the encoded data will be transferred through RTP. Is there an endianness to the current source code? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20160824/0c590e61/attachment.html>

Hi, I'm recently trying to investigate ppc_fp128 related problem. Here is a minimal C++ test case that seems wrongly compiled: long double id(long double a) { return a; } bool f(long double x) { return id(__builtin_fabsl(x)) >= 0; } int main() { if (f(-123.l)) { return 0; } return 1; } The program compiled with command: clang++ -static -target powerpc64le-linux-gnu bad.cc

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:24 PM Gao, Yunzhong < yunzhong_gao at playstation.sony.com> wrote: > According to > http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/ELF/ppc64/PPC-elf64abi.html, > "The high-order double-precision value (the one that comes first in > storage) must have the larger magnitude." > > So the order of the two doubles in your fp128 is not affected by the

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:19:16PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > This patch brings cross-endian support to vhost when used to implement > legacy virtio devices. Since it is a relatively rare situation, the > feature availability is controlled by a kernel config option (not set > by default). > > The vq->is_le boolean field is added to cache the endianness to be > used for ring

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:19:16PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > This patch brings cross-endian support to vhost when used to implement > legacy virtio devices. Since it is a relatively rare situation, the > feature availability is controlled by a kernel config option (not set > by default). > > The vq->is_le boolean field is added to cache the endianness to be > used for ring

From googling around, it seems that the ogg bitpacker has defined endianness, but I can't find anywhere that says which order it's in. Any help? The endianness of the 24 bit field in the OggPCM header should be specified. I was going to edit the wiki to specify it as network byte order, then realized that you may have standardized on something else in theora/vorbis already.

List, A recent discussion over on XiphWiki is trying to decide if OggPCM should support only little-endianness or the usual combo of big and little. It started with the following statement by an user (Qqq): "Portable players are usually ARM, which is usually little-endian. The Macintosh is now little-endian. Obviously the PC is little-endian. Clearly there is a winner. It's long past

Hello, I'd like to implement the gnu attribute "scalar_storage_order" to mark structs with non-native endianness. My rational is working on network protocols over little endian architecture (for instance: RiscV). An old bug is open on this issue here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35293 I'd like to discuss the possible ways to implement this. The GCC implementation is

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 03:17:13PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > This patch brings cross-endian support to vhost when used to implement > legacy virtio devices. Since it is a relatively rare situation, the feature > availability is controlled by a kernel config option (not set by default). > > If cross-endian support is compiled in, vhost abvertises a new feature > to be negotiated

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 03:17:13PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > This patch brings cross-endian support to vhost when used to implement > legacy virtio devices. Since it is a relatively rare situation, the feature > availability is controlled by a kernel config option (not set by default). > > If cross-endian support is compiled in, vhost abvertises a new feature > to be negotiated

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 21:06:05 +0100 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 07:04:38PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote: > > vhost is seriously broken with ppc64le guests, even in the supposedly > > supported case where the host is ppc64le and we don't need cross-endian > > support. > > > > The TX virtqueue fails to be