Re: Minimum Record Size? LONG

["Steve" <nospam_steved94@attbi.com>]

Maybe I'm dense, but I just can't see why the slice approach isn't endian
independent.  I would expect the mapping to be something like:

  Sixbit(1) bit 0 => Eightbit(1) bit 0
  Sixbit(1) bit 1 => Eightbit(1) bit 1
  Sixbit(1) bit 2 => Eightbit(1) bit 2
  Sixbit(1) bit 3 => Eightbit(1) bit 3
  Sixbit(1) bit 4 => Eightbit(1) bit 4
  Sixbit(1) bit 5 => Eightbit(1) bit 5
  Sixbit(2) bit 0 => Eightbit(1) bit 6
  Sixbit(2) bit 1 => Eightbit(1) bit 7
  Sixbit(2) bit 2 => Eightbit(2) bit 0
  Sixbit(2) bit 3 => Eightbit(2) bit 1
  Sixbit(2) bit 4 => Eightbit(2) bit 2
  Sixbit(2) bit 5 => Eightbit(2) bit 3
  Sixbit(3) bit 0 => Eightbit(2) bit 4
  Sixbit(3) bit 1 => Eightbit(2) bit 5
  Sixbit(3) bit 2 => Eightbit(2) bit 6
  Sixbit(3) bit 3 => Eightbit(2) bit 7
  Sixbit(3) bit 4 => Eightbit(3) bit 0
  Sixbit(3) bit 5 => Eightbit(3) bit 1
  Sixbit(4) bit 0 => Eightbit(3) bit 2
  Sixbit(4) bit 1 => Eightbit(3) bit 3
  Sixbit(4) bit 2 => Eightbit(3) bit 4
  Sixbit(4) bit 3 => Eightbit(3) bit 5
  Sixbit(4) bit 4 => Eightbit(3) bit 6
  Sixbit(4) bit 5 => Eightbit(3) bit 7

If you want to look at which "bytes" the results fall into, yes I agree that
it is endian independant, thus my remark about re-arranging the result.  I
still think my slice solution works for both endian machines.

I also find the use of shifts an accepatable answer.  I personally don't
like using multiplciation to do shifts.  Use the operation that describes
what you're doing.  Not something that gives the same result.

Steve
(The Duck)


"David C. Hoos" <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote in message
news:4VWqa.39167$b9.13645@fe07.atl2.webusenet.com...
> I haven't communicated my point very well.
>
> The slice approach is not endianness-independent.
>
> The arithmetic approach given by Tom Moran which was an
> improvement on my original submission is endianness-independent
> (as was my original submission).
>
> The point is that merely re-ordering the parameters to
> your procedure will not work on a big-endian machine
> without re-coding the procedure itself.
>
> The bit orders need to be reversed, as well.
>
[snip]