X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:25:09 +0200
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	htonl, htons, ntohl and ntohs types
Message-ID:	<20060421092508.GA15855@tuxedo.skovlyporten.dk>
MIME-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403
From:	lars AT segv DOT dk (Lars Munch)
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Hello

I have noticed that the types of the functions htonl, htons, ntohs and
ntohl differs from standard (and linux):

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/htonl.html

Cygwin uses:

unsigned long int        ntohl(unsigned long int);
unsigned short int       ntohs(unsigned short int);
unsigned long int        htonl(unsigned long int);
unsigned short int       htons(unsigned short int);

The standard (and Linux) has:

uint32_t htonl(uint32_t hostlong);
uint16_t htons(uint16_t hostshort);
uint32_t ntohl(uint32_t netlong);
uint16_t ntohs(uint16_t netshort);

Is there any reason for this difference?

The difference in the api gives me warnings when porting code from
Linux to Cygwin.

Thanks
Lars Munch

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -