[ntp:questions] new driver development
bruce.lilly at gmail.com
Mon Mar 28 02:40:24 UTC 2011
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 03:16:38 +0000, Dave Hart wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 01:44 UTC, Bruce Lilly <bruce.lilly at gmail.com>
>> 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:
More information about the questions