On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:48:15 +0100 Dave wrote: DS> RS> I'd vote for the <inttypes.h>/<stdint.h> style (more C99 headers). DS> RS> I'd like to avoid project specific types... DS> DS> OK - so what would that mean in practise? DS> What should the typedef name be for: DS> DS> a) unsigned 32-bit integers DS> b) signed 32-bit integers DS> c) unsigned 64-bit integers DS> d) signed 64-bit integers
uint32_t, int32_t, uint64_t, int64_t. Though I'm not sure we'd need explicit 64 bit types. (There is intmax_t for the case when you simply want the largest available int type.) I think the idea is more focused on explicit sizes for constrained types. MIB variables and OIDs are the two examples (OIDs are currently u_long, which means on 64 bit, they can contain illegal values). DS> RS> Should we change/define one variable somewhere in snmplib to use it, DS> RS> to catch platforms where it isn't defined? DS> DS> Hmmm.... DS> That sounds a good idea, but I'm not sure 5.2 is the right place to do DS> this.*Maybe* for the (early) 5.2 pre-release cycle, but certainly not for DS> 5.2 itself. I doubt it's worth it for just the pre-releases, so then it should probably wait for 5.3. -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33 Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift. http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285 _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
