From owner-freebsd-alpha  Sat Sep  5 08:19:05 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA01240
          for freebsd-alpha-outgoing; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 08:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA01234
          for <freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 08:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218])
	by ns1.yes.no (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA18444;
	Sat, 5 Sep 1998 17:17:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from eivind@localhost)
	by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id RAA19956;
	Sat, 5 Sep 1998 17:17:48 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-ID: <19980905171747.45786@follo.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 17:17:47 +0200
From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>
To: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au>, shimon@simon-shapiro.org
Cc: freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Help - No htonq, ntohq
References: <XFMail.980904181025.shimon@simon-shapiro.org> <199809042227.IAA12990@cimlogic.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i
In-Reply-To: <199809042227.IAA12990@cimlogic.com.au>; from John Birrell on Sat, Sep 05, 1998 at 08:27:40AM +1000
Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

On Sat, Sep 05, 1998 at 08:27:40AM +1000, John Birrell wrote:
> Simon Shapiro wrote:
> > Can anyone suggest a clean, portable way to support binary competability on
> > 64bit integers between an Alpha and IA?
> 
> int64_t & u_int64_t
> 
> > We have hton{l,s} but these are good only for 16 & 32 bit values.
> 
> I think hton{l,s} should be kept strictly for _network_ code.

I think Simon is working on sharing binary data between Intel and
Alpha (running with shared disk).  Saying 'strictly for network code'
doesn't help solve the problem at all.  May I suggest the introduction
of

hton16s(l,s)    ntoh16s(l,s)
hton16u(l,s)	ntoh16u(l,s)
hton32s(l,s)	ntoh32s(l,s)
hton32u(l,s)	ntoh32u(l,s)
hton64s(l,s)	ntoh64s(l,s)
hton64u(l,s)	ntoh64u(l,s)

as a much more clear way of handling the naming?  (I placed the
sign-indicator after the number of bits, to avoid confusion with
htons()).  This also give a clear answer to the question 'what should
I use for 64-bit' :-)

Eivind.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message