Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:39:31 -0500 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ntohq/htonq? Message-ID: <B76A2235-C31A-46B6-BB99-EC9A661D83BD@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <201109140747.21979.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <306FD881-6140-4DE2-AFF1-95C8079E4187@xcllnt.net> <201109140747.21979.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 14, 2011, at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 10:36:49 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 > I don't have a better idea. I do wish the names encoded the size = instead like=20 > we do for the [lb]etoh*() and hto[lb]e*() macros (that is ntoh64(), = etc.). =20 > However, given that ntohl() and ntohs() are standardized we've = probably lost=20 > the opportunity to fix that misfeature of ntoh*() and hton*() and a = 'q' suffix=20 > is consistent (though hackish). >=20 > I guess the one other possiblity is to add *16 and *32 aliases for 's' = and 'l'=20 > and then add *64 for the new one if we think that using the names is = better=20 > for the future (e.g. ntoh128() when it comes (or will that be ntoho()=20= > (octword?))). >=20 Looks like the hotel ate my reply... hton64/ntoh64 is what Linux has in the kernel. htonll and ntohll is = what Solaris and AIX have. So (1) I'd shy away from htonq since that's not as well established as = the other two in the OS (although googling suggests that many programs = use it). (2) I'd provide both htonll and hton64 with a note saying that = hton128 is the wave of the future. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B76A2235-C31A-46B6-BB99-EC9A661D83BD>