Closed Texnomic closed 5 years ago
That's actually correct. Field order refers to the field order, not the byte order. There is currently no way to achieve what you want without reversing the order of the fields. I've considered adding a "bit-numbering" attribute but since there is a workaround, I haven't spent much time on it.
The following Test Case produces
10000000
while it should produce00000001
.