Subject: Re: htonq
To: <>
From: Ignatios Souvatzis <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 03/03/1999 12:49:20
On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 05:33:53PM -0800, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
> Julian Assange <> writes:
> > I notice that there is some add-hackery going on in relation to usage
> > of network byte order 64 bit quantities (e.g file offsets in ufs and
> > nfs). Can we define a standard way (both from kernel and userland) of
> > moving 64 bit quantities to and from network byte order. e.g:
> i'd suspect that others have gone over this ground already.  i'd also
> like to note that 'q' (as well as 'l' and 's') are really bad letters
> for those function names.  8-)

{hton,ntoh}{16,32,64} would be, err, more purist.. but...

we probably have to support the {hton,ntoh}{s,l} anyhow, as synonyms for
{hton,ntoh}{16,32}. E.g., my home system uses an externally maintained 
networking subsystem (isdn4bsd) which supports 4 BSDs nowadays... I don't 
think forcing all of them #ifdef __NetBSD__ \n #define htonl hton32 \n#endif
is practical, so we'd have to do it ourselves, right?


 * Progress (n.): The process through which Usenet has evolved from
   smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of
   smart terminals.  -- (obscurity)