On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Randall Stewart wrote:
On Jun 23, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
but I think it
should be a local define to be64toh or ntoh64
I do prefer the ntoh64 version but beXXtoh or whatever it looks like others
are using is ok to me too since 'net' is a pretty wide def
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Randall Stewart wrote:
Bruce:
Comments (and questions in-line)... (you too Luigi)
See Luigi's reply for most details..
On Jun 23, 2010, at 6:33 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
strong objection!
We should instead use names with exact si
On Jun 24, 2010, at 6:10 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 05:43:36AM -0700, Randall Stewart wrote:
Lugi:
One other comment I want to make about your numbers... well maybe
three ;-)
...
Randall,
my numbers may well be affected by large errors, but the point was
just to show tha
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 05:43:36AM -0700, Randall Stewart wrote:
> Lugi:
>
> One other comment I want to make about your numbers... well maybe
> three ;-)
...
Randall,
my numbers may well be affected by large errors, but the point was
just to show that the *16/32/64 functions are already widely
On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:29 AM, Erik Trulsson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 05:19:29AM -0700, Randall Stewart wrote:
Bob:
Thats strange... when I do
man byteorder
(on my FreeBSD 8.0 system upgraded to head .. buildworld/
installworld/
et.al)
I get the same man age showing for both
man nto
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 05:19:29AM -0700, Randall Stewart wrote:
> Bob:
>
> Thats strange... when I do
>
> man byteorder
>
> (on my FreeBSD 8.0 system upgraded to head .. buildworld/installworld/
> et.al)
>
> I get the same man age showing for both
>
> man ntohl
>
> and
>
> man byteorder
B
Lugi:
One other comment I want to make about your numbers... well maybe
three ;-)
On Jun 23, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 09:50:26AM -0700, Randall Stewart wrote:
...
strong objection!
We should instead use names with exact sizes (16,32,64).
So please tel
Bob:
Thats strange... when I do
man byteorder
(on my FreeBSD 8.0 system upgraded to head .. buildworld/installworld/
et.al)
I get the same man age showing for both
man ntohl
and
man byteorder
This may just be a problem with my system.. I will check the other
8.0 installed systems at wor
On 6/23/10, Randall Stewart wrote:
> Then I would strongly suggest you go fix the manual page for ntohl/
> ntohs and
> point people to the be64toh() functions... then people would NOT be
> ignorant.
>
> The problem is there is NO clue in the system...
Already done, at least in 7.2. But it refers
On Jun 23, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 6/23/10 10:12 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 09:50:26AM -0700, Randall Stewart wrote:
...
strong objection!
We should instead use names with exact sizes (16,32,64).
So please tell me why you object so strongly? We have
On 6/23/10 10:12 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 09:50:26AM -0700, Randall Stewart wrote:
...
strong objection!
We should instead use names with exact sizes (16,32,64).
So please tell me why you object so strongly? We have the 16/32/64 bit
names which
are nice but are not expect
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 09:50:26AM -0700, Randall Stewart wrote:
...
> >>strong objection!
> >>We should instead use names with exact sizes (16,32,64).
>
> So please tell me why you object so strongly? We have the 16/32/64 bit
> names which
> are nice but are not expected so folks seem to not us
Bruce:
Comments (and questions in-line)... (you too Luigi)
On Jun 23, 2010, at 6:33 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 05:46:02PM -0400, Randall Stewart wrote:
Hi all:
I have had some fun in my day job playing with exchanging 64bit
numb
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 05:46:02PM -0400, Randall Stewart wrote:
Hi all:
I have had some fun in my day job playing with exchanging 64bit
numbers. Unfortunately
there is no ntohll() OR htonll() which would be the logical thing (for
us old farts) to use.
> We should instead use names with exact sizes (16,32,64).
i think it should be pink
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
On 6/22/10 3:12 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 05:46:02PM -0400, Randall Stewart wrote:
Hi all:
I have had some fun in my day job playing with exchanging 64bit
numbers. Unfortunately
there is no ntohll() OR htonll() which would be the logical thing (for
us old farts) to use.
Ye
On Jun 22, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 05:46:02PM -0400, Randall Stewart wrote:
Hi all:
I have had some fun in my day job playing with exchanging 64bit
numbers. Unfortunately
there is no ntohll() OR htonll() which would be the logical thing
(for
us old fart
On Jun 22, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Max Laier wrote:
On Tuesday 22 June 2010 23:46:02 Randall Stewart wrote:
Hi all:
I have had some fun in my day job playing with exchanging 64bit
numbers. Unfortunately
there is no ntohll() OR htonll() which would be the logical thing
(for
us old farts) to use.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 05:46:02PM -0400, Randall Stewart wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> I have had some fun in my day job playing with exchanging 64bit
> numbers. Unfortunately
> there is no ntohll() OR htonll() which would be the logical thing (for
> us old farts) to use.
>
> Yes, I have found htobe6
On Tuesday 22 June 2010 23:46:02 Randall Stewart wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> I have had some fun in my day job playing with exchanging 64bit
> numbers. Unfortunately
> there is no ntohll() OR htonll() which would be the logical thing (for
> us old farts) to use.
>
> Yes, I have found htobe64() and frien
Hi all:
I have had some fun in my day job playing with exchanging 64bit
numbers. Unfortunately
there is no ntohll() OR htonll() which would be the logical thing (for
us old farts) to use.
Yes, I have found htobe64() and friends.. and that would work.. but I
still cannot
help but feeling w
21 matches
Mail list logo
