This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC] Add htonll, ntohll?
- From: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 20:58:49 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Add htonll, ntohll?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131112151335 dot GA25932 at domone dot podge> <20131211230220 dot C07687442B at topped-with-meat dot com>
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 03:02:20PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> 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.
In git they considered these. There was a discusion about adding compatibility