[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gnash
Subject:    Re: [Gnash] non-portable amf test?
From:       "Martin Guy" <martinwguy () yahoo ! it>
Date:       2007-05-29 0:52:58
Message-ID: 56d259a00705281752k4cb1405tbedae32216a02a50 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

2007/5/25, Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com>:
> testsuite/libamf.all/test_number.cpp
>
>     amfnum_t *num;
>
>     num = amf_obj.extractNumber(buf);
>     if ((((char *)num)[6] == -16) && (((char *)num)[7] == 0x3f)) {
>         runtest.pass("Extracted Number AMF object");
>     } else {
>         runtest.fail("Extracted Number AMF object");
>     }
>
> The test fail on s390, as it would on all architectures with a
> different endianness than the authors machine.

I don't get it. It's checking for 0xf03f (hence the idiotic -16), and
in the AMF stream numbers are 64-bit bigendian. But presumable
extractNumber() converts to native endian. So why does the big-endian
f0 3f test succeed
on little-endian hosts and fail on big-endian ones?

    M



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]