From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 14 14:39:02 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 248E6106566C for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:39:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8CC68FC0C for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:39:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8EEZ4rv054458; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:35:08 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <306FD881-6140-4DE2-AFF1-95C8079E4187@xcllnt.net> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:34:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <306FD881-6140-4DE2-AFF1-95C8079E4187@xcllnt.net> To: Marcel Moolenaar X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (harmony.bsdimp.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:35:09 -0600 (MDT) Cc: FreeBSD Arch Subject: Re: 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 14:39:02 -0000 Linux has hton64, but last time I checked it was kernel only. NetBSD = has talked about different flavors of hton64 or htonq, but it appears = none made it into the tree. htonll is in both AIX and Solaris (well, OpenSolaris 2009.06). It isn't standardized, so the standards wonks will say "be sure not to = pollute namespace with these if you implement them." If I was doing it, I'd be tempted to implement all three with two being = simple aliases to the third canonical implementation, but I think that = might get me shot when I posted the patch. Nobody wants 1/3 of a baby. Warner On Sep 13, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > All, >=20 > Is there a reason not to add ntohq and htonq to the short > and long versions we (and everyone else) already has? >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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? >=20 > --=20 > Marcel Moolenaar > marcel@xcllnt.net >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >=20 >=20