From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nanno Langstraat Subject: Re: New manpage for betoh64() and friends Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:54:11 +0100 Message-ID: <4973C123.9080004@ii.nl> References: <4873E122.1010504@ii.nl> <4873EBB4.4030307@ii.nl> <4873ED78.2080303@ii.nl> <496DD6BF.2080707@ii.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org Cc: linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org Michael Kerrisk wrote: > I spoke too soon. I'd gone back and looked at your initial mail, seen > mention of "betoh64" as one of the required link names, grepped for > that in the glibc headers, and hadn't found it. But that name is > wrong, I think you meant "be64toh". And indeed these interfaces are > present in glibc 2.9. > Ah, I see. I'm very sorry for all the confusion that this one manpage has cost you. My simple aim was: to get a standard set of htobe64() / betoh64() etc. macros on all platforms (OpenBSD, Linux, FreeBSD; and hopefully outward from there). End result: complete failure. * OpenBSD wasn't willing to adopt instead of for userspace apps. (would accomodate glibc: glibc makes a sharper distinction between kernel API vs. userspace C library than the *BSDs do) * glibc's Ulrich Drepper evidently chose to use his own naming scheme (be64toh), instead of adopting the original OpenBSD scheme (betoh64). * FreeBSD didn't have much interest altogether. So, I clearly didn't hit the right notes to interest anybody in adopting a standard. I hope that this at least explains the situation & our grep confusion. With regards, Nanno -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html