ntohll/htonll? [was: Re: ntohq/htonq?]
Marcel Moolenaar
marcel at xcllnt.net
Wed Sep 14 17:15:01 UTC 2011
[changing subject to tie *ll to *q for search purposes]
On Sep 14, 2011, at 9:30 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:39:31 am Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Actually, come to think of it, we use *ll rather than *q variants here at work
> as well. I'd vote for (2).
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...
Anyway: I sense a preference for a numerical suffix over any single
or multi-letter suffix.
--
Marcel Moolenaar
marcel at xcllnt.net
More information about the freebsd-arch
mailing list