Subject: Re: htonq
To: Ignatios Souvatzis <>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 03/03/1999 12:28:48
Ignatios Souvatzis <> writes:
> {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?

i didn't say get rid of htoh{ls} and hton{ls}.  i just said that their
names sucked.

We definitely have to support those names for those functions, at
least for compatibility but also because (i think) they're spec'd by
some standards that we want to support.

do any other OSes do something w.r.t. hton and ntoh for 64-bit
integers?  i'm pretty sure Digital UNIX does, but i don't recall what
it is...

Chris Demetriou - -
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.