[RFC] Add htonll, ntohll?

[Ondřej Bílka]

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
versions, see
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/msg219760.html