Bruce Lilly wrote:
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
Hmm, For that use case I would stay with net byte order anyway.
uwe
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
