18 Mar
2018
18 Mar
'18
2:04 p.m.
On 18. mars 2018 12:42, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On 17 March 2018 at 19:30, Dagfinn Reiakvam <dagfinn(a)reiakvam.no> wrote:
+ IN_ADDR temp; + temp.S_un.S_addr = 0xffffffff << ( 32 - MaskLength); + *Mask = temp.S_un.S_un_b.s_b4 + ( temp.S_un.S_un_b.s_b3 << 8 ) + ( temp.S_un.S_un_b.s_b2 << 16 ) + ( temp.S_un.S_un_b.s_b1 << 24 ); Should that be "*mask = htonl(~0u << (32 - mask_len));"?
The tests would probably benefit from htonl() as well.
Thanks for your comments Henri. Yes, that looks more tidy. I was not aware of the htonl() function. Where in particular do you think the tests would benefit from this function? Also, I will not be using capital letter in my variables :)