From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 14 03:16:33 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02BC0106564A for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 03:16:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from mail.xcllnt.net (mail.xcllnt.net [70.36.220.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A10A8FC08 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 03:16:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sa-nc-common4-116.static.jnpr.net (natint3.juniper.net [66.129.224.36]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.xcllnt.net (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p8E2apXM082568 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:37:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) From: Marcel Moolenaar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:36:49 -0700 Message-Id: <306FD881-6140-4DE2-AFF1-95C8079E4187@xcllnt.net> To: FreeBSD Arch Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) Subject: ntohq/htonq? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 03:16:33 -0000 All, Is there a reason not to add ntohq and htonq to the short and long versions we (and everyone else) already has? Juniper has 64-bit entities that go over the wire in network byte order and, while these macros are absolutely arcane, I see no reason not to complete them with 64-bit variants. I did some googling and htonq and ntohq seem to be de facto names used, but oddly enough no OS has them defined. It's surreal. Are there better alternatives we should migrate to? -- Marcel Moolenaar marcel@xcllnt.net