On Monday, 23 May 2022 19:51:15 PDT 弓 长 wrote: > Hi, I don't find one document of reason about the design, I found this > patch: https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/177353 , apparently > it was big endian before that. > The reality is that little endian is more > commonly used in local environments, so I wonder why we don't default to > little endian?
Backwards compatibility. If you have a time machine and can send us a message in the mid-1990s, we could make a change. It's possible to change some of those fields by bumping the version number, but it would add code, not reduce. That is, it would make things more complex, not less. I don't think it's worth it. Byte-swapping is pretty fast. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
