Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:17:37 -0400 From: Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Observations from an old timer playing with 64 bit numbers... Message-ID: <274959C7-0B6C-4A96-83C1-D29A7D5107D6@lakerest.net> In-Reply-To: <20100622221228.GA93249@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> References: <E3C4102C-3106-4D5B-86E5-8D5BDD7FD442@lakerest.net> <20100622221228.GA93249@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > ------------------------------ Randall Stewart 803-317-4952 (cell)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?274959C7-0B6C-4A96-83C1-D29A7D5107D6>