This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC] Add htonll, ntohll?
- From: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- To: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:02:20 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Add htonll, ntohll?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131112151335 dot GA25932 at domone dot podge>
I don't think anyone has a plan. I'm not sure anyone cares. We already
have htobe64 and be64toh, which are identical to what htonll and ntohll
would be. Those are arguably better interface names than the old "n" ones,
since "be" for big-endian is more obviously talking about big-endian than
is "n" for network. It's hard to see a case for adding aliases for
interfaces we already have, just for parity with an ancient interface.