Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:12:28 +0200 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> To: Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Observations from an old timer playing with 64 bit numbers... Message-ID: <20100622221228.GA93249@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <E3C4102C-3106-4D5B-86E5-8D5BDD7FD442@lakerest.net> References: <E3C4102C-3106-4D5B-86E5-8D5BDD7FD442@lakerest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 :) cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100622221228.GA93249>