Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:34:23 -0500 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: FreeBSD Arch <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ntohq/htonq? Message-ID: <D716EC90-B036-4D1A-9DD3-5C18E65DF386@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <306FD881-6140-4DE2-AFF1-95C8079E4187@xcllnt.net> References: <306FD881-6140-4DE2-AFF1-95C8079E4187@xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D716EC90-B036-4D1A-9DD3-5C18E65DF386>