Index:
[thread]
[date]
[subject]
[author]
From: Andrew Apted <ajapted@netspace.net.au>
To : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:14:31 +1000
Re: New ggi_graphtype
Marcus writes:
> > I don't think we should have code in
> > every target to detect endianess to set the appropriate subscheme.
> > DirectBuffer uses "native" and "reverse" endian which makes more
> > sense in this case.
>
> Detecting native/reverse endian will require MORE work in
> targets than LSB/MSB. In the first case the target has to know
> the endianess of BOTH the CPU and the gfx hardware.
Probably (depending on the target, e.g. KGI might handle the endianness
itself and export the native/reverse info to LibGGI).
> With my suggestion it only has to know the endianess of the gfx HW.
The advantage of native/reverse is that it shields *programs* from
having to know what endianness they are, and IMHO this is more important
than a bit of extra work within LibGGI.
Cheers,
_____________________________________________ ____
\ /
Andrew Apted <andrew@ggi-project.org> \/
Index:
[thread]
[date]
[subject]
[author]