On Jun 22, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 05:46:02PM -0400, 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)
strong objection!
We should instead use names with exact sizes (16,32,64).
In case you want to use Roman Numbers, 64 would be LXIV :)
But htonl/nthol and friends have been used for years. Yes 32/64 and 16
are clearer
but they are not consistent with what about everyone in the networking
world uses.
R
cheers
luigi
_______________________________________________
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"
