X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:00:00 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: htonl, htons, ntohl and ntohs types Message-ID: <20060421100000.GC12661@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20060421092508 DOT GA15855 AT tuxedo DOT skovlyporten DOT dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060421092508.GA15855@tuxedo.skovlyporten.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Apr 21 11:25, Lars Munch wrote: > 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? Nobody had a problem so far? Fixed in CVS. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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/