Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:36:17 -0400 From: Bob Johnson <fbsdlists@gmail.com> To: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Observations from an old timer playing with 64 bit numbers... Message-ID: <AANLkTilU6EoCroqk3LevRgNS_Ghlc9I10foMj5rG48El@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <EDF1B516-63DC-4595-9690-2B7AB6CA811E@lakerest.net> 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> <EDF1B516-63DC-4595-9690-2B7AB6CA811E@lakerest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/23/10, Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net> wrote: > 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... Already done, at least in 7.2. But it refers you to them under the alias byteorder(9). - Bob -- -- Bob Johnson fbsdlists@gmail.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTilU6EoCroqk3LevRgNS_Ghlc9I10foMj5rG48El>