AWARE SYSTEMS
TIFF and LibTiff Mail List Archive

Thread

1993.08.17 00:06 "byte swapping 16- and 32-bit data", by Sam Leffler
1993.08.17 13:32 "Re: byte swapping 16- and 32-bit data", by Gaile G. Gordon
1993.08.17 13:54 "Re: byte swapping 16- and 32-bit data", by Quincey Koziol
1993.08.17 14:55 "Re: byte swapping 16- and 32-bit data", by Sam Leffler
1993.08.17 16:51 "Re: byte swapping 16- and 32-bit data", by Dan McCoy
1993.08.17 18:19 "Re: byte swapping 16- and 32-bit data", by Sam Leffler
1993.08.17 19:44 "Re: byte swapping 16- and 32-bit data", by Rick Richardson
1993.08.17 19:29 "Re: byte swapping 16- and 32-bit data", by Dan McCoy
1993.08.18 01:57 "Re: byte swapping 16- and 32-bit data", by Craig Hockenberry
1993.08.18 17:57 "Re: byte swapping 16- and 32-bit data", by Dan McCoy
1993.08.18 19:11 "Re: byte swapping 16- and 32-bit data", by Sam Leffler
1993.08.17 20:45 "Re: byte swapping 16- and 32-bit data", by Richard Minner

1993.08.17 13:54 "Re: byte swapping 16- and 32-bit data", by Quincey Koziol

Yes, yes, yes! As we have discovered with development of the HDF file format, handling the machine independant parts in the library makes life _SO_ much easier for end-users. I vote heartily to retain this feature (I will even provide code from the HDF library to perform these operations efficiently for _many_ different platforms).

        Quincey Koziol
        Senior Programmer
        NCSA

Actually, machine independence, and the fact that I don't need to worry about byte swapping is one of the big advantages in my mind to using the tiff library. Although I wouldn't mind if you added the no byte swap as an option for cases were efficiency is the primary concern, I would not be happy if I had to add byte swapping to all my tiff code.