On 06/24/2010 11:06 AM, Dave Shield wrote: > Two comments. > Firstly, I would regard 'range_list' as an internal data structure, > rather than part of the public API, so it would be legitimate (IMO) > to tweak this as part of a new major release. > Hence it might be possible to make such a change for 5.6 (if we move > fast)
Ok > > However, would this actually help? On 32-bit systems, 'long' and 'int' are > typically both 32 bits, so suffer from exactly the same issues. > The problem (as I see it) is one of signed vs unsigned, rather than 32 > vs 64 bit. > > I suspect that what is probably needed is some form of flag within the > range_list structure, to indicate whether the values should be treated as > signed or unsigned (with appropriate casts if necessary). I'd try to avoid such flags if possible... What about #ifdef HAVE_INT64 and HAVE_STRTOLL, i.e. using int64_t and strtoll if available and int as fallback? Jan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
