Subject: Re: ntohl() types
To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <>
From: Jason R Thorpe <>
List: tech-net
Date: 08/21/2001 22:49:59
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 02:09:25PM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:

 > 	XNET 5.2 (p92) says that ntohl() and friends should use uint32_t and
 > 	uint16_t (u_int32_t and u_int16_t if you favor BSD-like types).
 > 	NetBSD header files use in_addr_t and in_port_t.  are there any
 > 	reasons why they should be like this?

Heh, they use in_addr_t and in_port_t because that's what an older
version of XNET said to use :-)

Please change them to use uint32_t and uint16_t (not u_...).

        -- Jason R. Thorpe <>