Subject: Re: ntohl() types
To: None <>
From: Simon Burge <>
List: tech-net
Date: 08/22/2001 15:54:43
Jason R Thorpe wrote:

> 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 :-)

SUSv2 uses uint{32,16}_t as well.

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


Simon Burge                            <>
NetBSD CDs, Support and Service: