Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 11:55:13 -0500 From: Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Thomas Moestl <tmoestl@gmx.net>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: adding more endian conversion and bus space functions Message-ID: <20020112115513.L39321@locore.ca> In-Reply-To: <20020111215209.V1119-100000@gamplex.bde.org>; from bde@zeta.org.au on Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 10:00:45PM %2B1100 References: <20020111005207.GA7246@crow.dom2ip.de> <20020111215209.V1119-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Apparently, On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 10:00:45PM +1100, Bruce Evans said words to the effect of; > On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Thomas Moestl wrote: > > > I would also like to make most of the machine/endian.h files MI, as > > sys/endian.h. The only thing that the MD files would still contain are > > the definintion of BYTE_ORDER and inline implementations of some > > functions. sys/endian.h would implemented the interfaces listed in 1. > > as well as htonl and friends for both BYTE_ORDERs. > > Mike Barcroft is doing this. IIRC, it doesn't have <sys/endian.h>, since > the ntohl() family is declared in <net/arpa.h> according to POSIX, so > <sys/endian.h> would be neither standard no useful. It is useful to if we don't have to duplicate C implementations of byte swapping functions 5 times. > I think the bus > space headers should not depend on any endianness support in other > headers except <machine/endian.h> defining _[_]BYTE_ORDER. Why? I disagree. > > Bruce > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020112115513.L39321>