Subject: Re: ntohl() types
To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@iijlab.net>
From: Jason R Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>
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 <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>