At Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:55:19 +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > > At Thu, 12 Aug 2004 21:08:42 +1000, > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > According to POSIX, htonl/ntohl are declared in arpa/inet.h. So > > > the info text should be modified to refer to that file instead of > > > netinet/in.h. > > > > Exactly POSIX says it should be arpa/inet.h. However glibc put such > > definitions in netinet/in.h. But don't worry because arpa/inet.h > > always includes netinet/in.h, so we don't violate POSIX definition. I > > close this report. > > Sorry I think you didn't get my point. What I mean is that the > documentation should refer the user to the POSIX standard location > either by itself or in addition to where glibc actually puts it.
Exactly. Actually the latest POSIX defines it in arpa/inet.h, however historically it has been defined in netinet/in.h. So I don't know that your argument point is the real serious issue: > Otherwise someone referring to the glibc documentation may unwittingly > produce programs that don't work on other POSIX platforms. Do you have more pointers which says we should change into arpa/inet.h? The recent BSDs defines htonl in both netinet/in.h and arpa/inet.h. Thinking about the definition of arpa/inet.h (definitions for internet operations) and netinet/in.h (Internet address family) described in SUSv3, moving it to arpa/inet.h makes sense for me. However, I don't know why the recent POSIX wants to move it from netinet/in.h to arpa/inet.h. htonl entry in manual/socket.texi says "@comment BSD", but I have difficulty to change this comment entry. So, before modifying it, I would like to know your point more. Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
