On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 03:16:38 +0000, Dave Hart wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 01:44 UTC, Bruce Lilly <bruce.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> 4. Assuming specific sizes for an integer is a really bad idea... "(64 >> bits making up the) clockTimeStamp* and receiveTimeStamp* fields" > > Actually nailing down the sizes of objects is a really good idea when > sharing binary structures across separately-compiled programs. We > cannot presume the same compiler and options build ntpd and anything > that attempts to share memory with it. We need not (and should not) > worry about endianness for a shared memory contract, though. > > Thanks for playing,
Endianness (and more generally byte order) are of concern for precisely the same reasons. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endianness#Bi-endian_hardware _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
