AWARE SYSTEMS
TIFF and LibTiff Mail List Archive

Thread

1994.09.16 04:17 "TIFF Bit Ordering Versus Fill Order", by John M Davison
1994.09.16 17:42 "Re: TIFF Bit Ordering Versus Fill Order", by Sam Leffler
1994.09.19 17:34 "Now that you mention bit order...", by Craig Jackson
1994.09.19 19:04 "Bit order revisited ...", by Scott Wagner
1994.09.19 22:46 "Re: Now that you mention bit order...", by Sam Leffler
1994.09.20 13:25 "RE: Now that you mention bit order...", by Scott Wagner
1994.09.19 23:31 "Re: TIFF Bit Ordering Versus Fill Order", by Jim Arnold
[...]

1994.09.19 17:34 "Now that you mention bit order...", by Craig Jackson

Actually, the desirable "host" bit order depends on the application. I would suggest that there is no natural bit order in any system implementing C, because bits are not addressable in C.

However, there are times when a MSB-to-LSB order is convenient for processing, especially on big-endian machines. There are other times when a LSB-to-MSB order is more convenient. These cases may be more frequent on little-endian machines, but not restricted to them.

Would it be possible to have this be a settable parameter, without causing too much of a performance hit?

Craig Jackson
craigj@epub.ziff.com
Electronic Publishing,
Information Access Company