On Jun 22, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Max Laier wrote:
On Tuesday 22 June 2010 23:46:02 Randall Stewart wrote:
Hi all:
I have had some fun in my day job playing with exchanging 64bit
numbers. Unfortunately
there is no ntohll() OR htonll() which would be the logical thing
(for
us old farts) to use.
Yes, I have found htobe64() and friends.. and that would work.. but I
still cannot
help but feeling we should have the ntohll() and htonll().. for
consistency if nothing
else.
Any objections to this showing up in a head near you soon (speak soon
or I will commit
the patches to add these ;-D)
Is there any precedence in other *BSDs or elsewhere? There is
already enough
difference in endian.h between the BSDs (OpenBSD has betohXX instead
of
beXXtoh) and it makes porting code difficult. I'd prefer to not add
gratuitous aliases for things that already have a well-known name.
Max:
Well well-known such things are not... otherwise I would not
have been futzing around looking for it.
Google showed nothing.. and finding the be64toh() took a while.
The only thing the man page in ntohl shows is the 16/32 bit quantities
and a nice disclaimer about conforming to POSIX - byteorder
fun..
R
Thanks,
Max
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
------------------------------
Randall Stewart
803-317-4952 (cell)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
