Observations from an old timer playing with 64 bit numbers...

[Randall Stewart]

On Jun 22, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 05:46:02PM -0400, Randall Stewart wrote:
>> Hi all:
>>
>> I have had some fun in my day job playing with exchanging 64bit
>> numbers. Unfortunately
>> there is no ntohll() OR htonll() which would be the logical thing  
>> (for
>> us old farts) to use.
>>
>> Yes, I have found htobe64() and friends.. and that would work.. but I
>> still cannot
>> help but feeling we should have the ntohll() and htonll().. for
>> consistency if nothing
>> else.
>>
>> Any objections to this showing up in a head near you soon (speak soon
>> or I will commit
>> the patches to add these ;-D)
>
> strong objection!
> We should instead use names with exact sizes (16,32,64).
> In case you want to use Roman Numbers, 64 would be LXIV :)

But htonl/nthol and friends have been used for years. Yes 32/64 and 16  
are clearer
but they are not consistent with what about everyone in the networking  
world uses.

R

>
> cheers
> luigi
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>

------------------------------
Randall Stewart
803-317-4952 (cell)