From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Jul 22 12:09:04 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id MAA00502
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 12:09:04 -0700
Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [192.216.222.3])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA00453
          for <hackers@FREEBSD.ORG>; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 12:08:59 -0700
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by who.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) with ESMTP id LAA29583
          ; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 11:43:39 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA29900; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 11:38:13 -0700
To: Pedro A M Vazquez <vazquez@iqm.unicamp.br>
cc: rpt@miles.sso.loral.com (Richard Toren), hackers@FREEBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: missing xdr routines ?? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 22 Jul 1995 12:49:10 -0300."
             <199507221549.MAA19072@kalypso.iqm.unicamp.br> 
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 11:38:13 -0700
Message-ID: <29898.806438293@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: hackers-owner@FREEBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> I'm using this code I got from pvm2.4.1:
> 
> int
> xdr_float(xdrp, fp)
>         XDR *xdrp; 
>         float *fp; 
> {       
>         return xdr_long(xdrp, (long*)fp);
> }       
>         
> int     
> xdr_double(xdrp, dp)
>         XDR *xdrp;  
>         double *dp; 
> {       
>                 return xdr_long(xdrp, (long*)dp + 1)
>                                 && xdr_long(xdrp, (long*)dp);
> }                               

So what's the concensus, folks?  Should we add these?  Were they
omitted for a reason?  If not, I'll add them in the next 24 hours.

					Jordan