+1
>Patch 1728247 is created under recognition where the SIZEOF_LONG_LONG
is defined when a platform has long long type. However the
net-snmp-config.h for MSVC has SIZEOF_LONG_LONG definition even if
MSVC doesn't have long long type.
>To match the configure script behavior, it's better to remove
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:58:01 +0200
Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mitsuru Chinen wrote:
> > Thank you very much for testing my patch!
> > I've submitted the patch to patch manager.
> >
> >
> > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1746273&group_id=12694&atid=3126
Mitsuru Chinen wrote:
> Thank you very much for testing my patch!
> I've submitted the patch to patch manager.
>
>
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1746273&group_id=12694&atid=312694
Could you please do as a favor by attaching the 5.4 variant of the patch
to a new mes
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:32:32 -0400
Alex Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mitsuru Chinen wrote:
> >> Mitsuru Chinen wrote:
> > But I reviewed the code, I'm getting to think it's better to
> > prepare both case than to replace long long to uint64_t.
> > And at the snmplib/snmp_client.c, I think
Mitsuru Chinen wrote:
>> Mitsuru Chinen wrote:
> But I reviewed the code, I'm getting to think it's better to
> prepare both case than to replace long long to uint64_t.
> And at the snmplib/snmp_client.c, I think it's better to prepare
> code for both unsigned long long and uintmax_t.
>
> Accordi
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:30:27 -0400
Alex Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mitsuru Chinen wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:06:03 +0900
> > Mitsuru Chinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Then, how about the attached patch?
> >>
> The patch fixes the long long issue, but doesn't ad
Mitsuru Chinen wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:06:03 +0900
> Mitsuru Chinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Then, how about the attached patch?
>>
The patch fixes the long long issue, but doesn't address the
HAVE_INTMAX_T issue. As I mentioned in my original email, should we change:
t
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:06:03 +0900
Mitsuru Chinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then, how about the attached patch?
Oops, I'm sorry. I forgot to delete target code,
the definition of SIZEOF_LONG_LONG.
Best Regards,
Mitsuru Chinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: snmplib/snmp_client.c
===
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:35:52 -0400
Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:39:58 +0900 Mitsuru wrote:
> MC> #if defined (WIN32) && !defined (mingw32)
> MC> else if (vars->val_len == sizeof(__int64)){
> MC> const unsigned __int64 *val_ullong
On 28/06/07, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd much rather see this special case done away with, and simply use the
> uint64_t type from net-snmp-config.h. Since windows has it's own static
> version, that file should be updated to define uint64_t as __int64.
Sounds good to me.
Dave
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:39:58 +0900 Mitsuru wrote:
MC> #if defined (WIN32) && !defined (mingw32)
MC> else if (vars->val_len == sizeof(__int64)){
MC> const unsigned __int64 *val_ullong
MC> = (const unsigned __int64 *) value;
MC> #else
MC> -
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:37:52 +0100
"Dave Shield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 27/06/07, Mitsuru Chinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think it is a bit tricky to define "SIZE_OF_LONG_LONG"
> > for such purpose. How about the attached proposal patch?
> > Please note I haven't test it works or
On 27/06/07, Mitsuru Chinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it is a bit tricky to define "SIZE_OF_LONG_LONG"
> for such purpose. How about the attached proposal patch?
> Please note I haven't test it works or not, as I don't have
> such an Windows environment.
I don't think this is *quite* ri
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:29:23 +0200
Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Shield wrote:
> > Does such a setup define "SIZEOF_LONG_LONG" ?
> > If so where? (And *why*?!)
>
> So what happens to the Windows builds if you remove "#define
> SIZEOF_LONG_LONG 8" from win32/net-snmp/net-snmp-co
> "AB" == Alex Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AB> Patch 1728247 added to types.h:
Better question... where are these used? I don't believe there is any
place in the code that a long long should be used at this point. IE, if
it's in there it's likely because broken code was put in somew
> On 24/06/07, Alex Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Patch 1728247 added to types.h:
>>
>> #ifndef HAVE_INTMAX_T
>> #ifdef SIZEOF_LONG_LONG
>> typedef long long int intmax_t;
>> #else
>> typedef long intmax_t;
>> #endif
>> #endif
>
>
>> This will not compile with MSVC 6 as *long long* and
Dave Shield wrote:
> Does such a setup define "SIZEOF_LONG_LONG" ?
> If so where? (And *why*?!)
So what happens to the Windows builds if you remove "#define
SIZEOF_LONG_LONG 8" from win32/net-snmp/net-snmp-config.h?
It looks like it'd just affect snmplib/snmp_client.c which could be
fixed if nee
On 24/06/07, Alex Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patch 1728247 added to types.h:
>
> #ifndef HAVE_INTMAX_T
> #ifdef SIZEOF_LONG_LONG
> typedef long long int intmax_t;
> #else
> typedef long intmax_t;
> #endif
> #endif
> This will not compile with MSVC 6 as *long long* and *unsigned long
18 matches
Mail list logo
