On Thursday 10 June 2004 12:45, Ian Zagorskih wrote:
> $ uname -a
> NetBSD IANZAG 2.0_BETA NetBSD 2.0_BETA (IANZAG) #0: Thu Jun  3 20:54:46 NOVST 
> 2004  ianzag@IANZAG:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/IANZAG i386
> 
> According to htons manual page host/network convertion functions declared as:
> 
> ---cut---
> SYNOPSIS
>      #include <sys/types.h>
> 
>      in_addr_t
>      htonl(in_addr_t host32);
> 
>      in_port_t
>      htons(in_port_t host16);
> 
>      in_addr_t
>      ntohl(in_addr_t net32);
> 
>      in_port_t
>      ntohs(in_port_t net16);
> ---cut---
> 
> ...which is not compatible with POSIX declaration:
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/htonl.html

In this context, there's no formal definition of "compatible".

> ---cut---
> SYNOPSIS
> 	#include <arpa/inet.h>
>  
> 	 uint32_t htonl(uint32_t hostlong);
> 	 uint16_t htons(uint16_t hostshort);
> 	 uint32_t ntohl(uint32_t netlong);
> 	 uint16_t ntohs(uint16_t netshort);
> ---cut---
> 
> Different header files, different types, even different goals of convertion - 
> POSIX deals with any integers of fixed length and NetBSD deals only with 
> internet port/address numbers.
> 
> Maybe i'm missing something but this style looks a bit weird, don't you 
> think ? :)

If you look at the history of these interfaces and don't ignore
standardization efforts long before POSIX-2001 you'll find it not
all that "weird", given the slow transition from short/long over
in_port_t/in_addr_t to uint16_t/uint32_t.

Now, in any case, if you have a look the implementation of these
you'll find that NetBSD has been using the XNS5-style declarations
for almost 3 years; it's just been missed to update the documentation
at that time.



- Klaus