Nope, the current version is correct, as you can see by actually running it.
Eddie On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Markku Savela <[email protected]> wrote: > hi, > > integers.hh defines functions ntohq/htonq, but to me they > look identical? To me it looks like, in ntohq, the return > > return (((uint64_t)ntohl(lo)) << 32) | ntohl(hi); > > should be replaced by > > return (((uint64_t)ntohl(hi)) << 32) | ntohl(lo); > > ??? > _______________________________________________ > click mailing list > [email protected] > https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click _______________________________________________ click mailing list [email protected] https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
