Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:01:17 +0200 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Cc: Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net> Subject: Re: Observations from an old timer playing with 64 bit numbers... Message-ID: <201006230001.17407.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <E3C4102C-3106-4D5B-86E5-8D5BDD7FD442@lakerest.net> References: <E3C4102C-3106-4D5B-86E5-8D5BDD7FD442@lakerest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Thanks, Max
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201006230001.17407.max>