[ntp:questions] new driver development
uwe_klein_habertwedt at t-online.de
Mon Mar 28 07:21:32 UTC 2011
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.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:
Hmm, For that use case I would stay with net byte order anyway.
More information about the questions