Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:56:58 -0700 From: Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Observations from an old timer playing with 64 bit numbers... Message-ID: <EDF1B516-63DC-4595-9690-2B7AB6CA811E@lakerest.net> In-Reply-To: <4C226354.80601@elischer.org> References: <E3C4102C-3106-4D5B-86E5-8D5BDD7FD442@lakerest.net> <20100622221228.GA93249@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20100623232402.X45536@delplex.bde.org> <9C936FEB-4858-4D8D-89CC-182EA3A80365@lakerest.net> <20100623171222.GA7981@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <4C226354.80601@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 23, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 6/23/10 10:12 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 09:50:26AM -0700, Randall Stewart wrote: >> ... >>>>> strong objection! >>>>> We should instead use names with exact sizes (16,32,64). >>> >>> So please tell me why you object so strongly? We have the 16/32/64 >>> bit >>> names which >>> are nice but are not expected so folks seem to not use them. I have >> >> people's ignorance is not an excuse for not doing things right. >> We'd still be using BYTE, WORD and DWORD otherwise. >> >> I think there is no doubt that we should use the 16/32/64 bit names >> if we could start from scratch, and the only reason for not doing >> so is avoiding gratuitous changes to existing/stable code. >> >> The case of *to*ll does not apply, in that there is no actual legacy >> to adapt to. And btw there is tons of places which use the 16/32/64 >> bit >> names in the filesystem, usb and generic device drivers. In fact, >> many more than ntohl/htonl >> >> > grep -r be32 ~/FreeBSD/head/sys/ | grep -v .svn | wc >> 1438 6397 145174 >> > grep -r le32 ~/FreeBSD/head/sys/ | grep -v .svn | wc >> 2203 10269 210989 >> > grep -r ntohl ~/FreeBSD/head/sys/ | grep -v .svn | wc >> 854 4009 84855 >> > grep -r htonl ~/FreeBSD/head/sys/ | grep -v .svn | wc >> 738 3604 72970 > > > what he said.. > > if you want to have ntohll in SCTP then that is your choice, SCTP does not have a case for sending 64 bit things... This is my day job and other folks looking for nothll() and friends... > but I think it > should be a local define to be64toh or ntoh64 > I do prefer the ntoh64 version but beXXtoh or whatever it looks like > others are using is ok to me too since 'net' is a pretty wide > definition and not ALL protocols are big endian. Well thats fine, we can let folks continue rolling there own if thats what y'all want. I really don't care actually... I already have the ifdef's in place in my day-job app code.. so its no big deal ;-) I will make this last comment.. directed at Luigi in response to: >> people's ignorance is not an excuse for not doing things right Then I would strongly suggest you go fix the manual page for ntohl/ ntohs and point people to the be64toh() functions... then people would NOT be ignorant. The problem is there is NO clue in the system... R ------------------------------ Randall Stewart 803-317-4952 (cell)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?EDF1B516-63DC-4595-9690-2B7AB6CA811E>