[rrd-developers] implementing portable format

[kevin brintnall]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:12:26PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 10:08:06AM +0100, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> 
> >This sounds like quite a bit of added complexity. It would
> >require us to be able to convert from all platforms to all other
> >platforms ... I have the feeling that adding one new format with
> >the ability to read the old one already puts quite something on our
> >plate.
> 
> Why didn't we use htonl(), ntohl() etc, btw?
> 
> It's not that converting between "host" and "network" byte order is
> something new, ISTR..
> 
> This means that we just store the data in network byte order on disk
> and read it back with ntohl(), ntohs(). This should result in
> much reduced pain, i would say.

Given the various machine architectures (now and future), and the various
packing strategies employed by all the compilers out there, it makes sense
to use 64-bit values.  Is there a standard ntohl() equivalent for 64-bits?

Most of the work is in ensuring that all accesses to the file use the
proper xtoy() and ytox()...  not actually picking the function.

-- 
 kevin brintnall =~ /kbrint at rufus.net/