Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: "Dave Korn" To: Subject: RE: Byte-order in od -x (Win2K) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:16:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <830404B1D376BA46BC25BE71A3E12873B9B734@corvus.tcgp.dundee.ac.uk> Message-ID: ----Original Message---- >From: Fergus Daly >Sent: 28 June 2005 15:45 > > ("od -x .." outputs the strange transposition of bytes that you have > referred to.) It's not a 'transposition of bytes'. It's not bytes at all; "od -x" defaults to reading 16-bit short integers, and outputs them in host-endian order. It's completely correct. "od -x" is the same as "od -x2" which is different from "od -x1" which is what the OP really wanted in the first place. Now, I'd certainly agree that short int is a strange default for od (as indeed is octal, which it defaults to if you don't specify a base explicitly); but it's not 'strange' and nothing is 'transposed', it's simply correct-albeit-unexpected behaviour. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/