https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79945
Pavel Zhukov <pavel at zhukoff dot net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pavel at zhukoff dot net
--- Comment #5 from Pavel Zhukov <pavel at zhukoff dot net> ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
> Presumably:
>
> Index: system-linux-ppc.ads
> ===================================================================
> --- system-linux-ppc.ads (revision 245767)
> +++ system-linux-ppc.ads (working copy)
> @@ -89,7 +89,8 @@ package System is
> -- Other System-Dependent Declarations
>
> type Bit_Order is (High_Order_First, Low_Order_First);
> - Default_Bit_Order : constant Bit_Order := High_Order_First;
> + Default_Bit_Order : constant Bit_Order :=
> + Bit_Order'Val (Standard'Default_Bit_Order);
> pragma Warnings (Off, Default_Bit_Order); -- kill constant condition
> warning
>
> -- Priority-related Declarations (RM D.1)
I'm wondering if it will work and not break ppc and ppc64.
ppc64le is exceptional in ppc family. ppc and ppc64 have high_bit_first
$ gcc -dumpmachine
ppc64-redhat-linux
$ ./bits
Default byte order is: HIGH_ORDER_FIRST
Order of record is HIGH_ORDER_FIRST
$ gcc -dumpmachine
ppc64le-redhat-linux
$ ./bits
Default byte order is: HIGH_ORDER_FIRST <== SHOULD BE LOW!
Order of record is LOW_ORDER_FIRST
