From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 14 18:19:14 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D14F7106564A; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:19:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D868FC15; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:19:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8EID6J3056974; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:13:16 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:12:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <306FD881-6140-4DE2-AFF1-95C8079E4187@xcllnt.net> <201109140747.21979.jhb@freebsd.org> <201109141230.51827.jhb@freebsd.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (harmony.bsdimp.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:13:19 -0600 (MDT) Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ntohll/htonll? [was: Re: ntohq/htonq?] X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:19:14 -0000 On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > [changing subject to tie *ll to *q for search purposes] >=20 > On Sep 14, 2011, at 9:30 AM, John Baldwin wrote: >=20 >> On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:39:31 am Warner Losh wrote: >>>=20 >>> hton64/ntoh64 is what Linux has in the kernel. htonll and ntohll is = what Solaris and AIX have. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> Actually, come to think of it, we use *ll rather than *q variants = here at work >> as well. I'd vote for (2). >=20 > The only problem I'm facing is that htonq/ntohq are well-established > and heavily used within Junos. They are even exposed in the SDK. So, > while I don't mind taking a slightly different route, I do need to > deal with compatibility. But if I need to do that, then there's also > no real reason anymore to add a 64-bit variant to FreeBSD. I need to > see what is possible... >=20 > Anyway: I sense a preference for a numerical suffix over any single > or multi-letter suffix. There's no reason not to support all 3. They'd all be in the BSD name = space anyway... My hesitance to do that is based on my intuition, but = there's no actual resistance so far in this thread... Sometimes doing = the little things like this can help a huge amount. The one down side would be for those applications that have defined = these routines themselves might need minor tweaking for FreeBSD. I = suspect that this question could be answered by a simple ports run. I = think that body of software would be a good estimator for all = third-party software... Warner=