|The perl guys apparently added a definition for U64 which conflicts with
the one in int64.h. Is it possible to add #ifdef guards to one
definition or the other, or if one is used in a limited scope can the
name be changed? In file included from
/home/rdrake/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.23.4/lib
On 02/05/16 17:35, Robert Drake wrote:
> The perl guys apparently added a definition for U64 which conflicts with
> the one in int64.h. Is it possible to add #ifdef guards to one
> definition or the other, or if one is used in a limited scope can the
> name be changed?
The U64 typedef has been rem
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:36:20 -0800 Bart wrote:
BVA> On 02/05/16 17:35, Robert Drake wrote:
BVA> > The perl guys apparently added a definition for U64 which
BVA> > conflicts with the one in int64.h. Is it possible to add
BVA> > #ifdef guards to one definition or the other, or if one is
BVA> > used i
On 03/03/16 19:05, Robert Story wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:36:20 -0800 Bart wrote:
> BVA> On 02/05/16 17:35, Robert Drake wrote:
> BVA> > The perl guys apparently added a definition for U64 which
> BVA> > conflicts with the one in int64.h. Is it possible to add
> BVA> > #ifdef guards to one de
On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 02:59:55PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 03/03/16 19:05, Robert Story wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:36:20 -0800 Bart wrote:
> > BVA> On 02/05/16 17:35, Robert Drake wrote:
> > BVA> > The perl guys apparently added a definition for U64 which
> > BVA> > conflicts with
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 01:33:14PM -0400, Robert Story wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 12:28:14 -0400 Bill wrote:
> BF> > > > I think this needs some discussion. While the change does
> BF> > > > not affect binary compatibility, it does remove a typedef
> BF> > > > that has been around since 1998. It'
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Magnus Fromreide
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 02:59:55PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 03/03/16 19:05, Robert Story wrote:
> > > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:36:20 -0800 Bart wrote:
> > > BVA> On 02/05/16 17:35, Robert Drake wrote:
> > > BVA> > The perl guys a
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 12:28:14 -0400 Bill wrote:
BF> > > > I think this needs some discussion. While the change does
BF> > > > not affect binary compatibility, it does remove a typedef
BF> > > > that has been around since 1998. It's possible and even
BF> > > > likely that people are using this typede
On 03/16/16 15:04, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> Since c99 uint64_t exists. Why do we need U64 in the first place?
That's a good question. I think we cannot switch from struct counter64
to uint64_t because that would change the Net-SNMP ABI. Functions like
asn_build_unsigned_int64() and snmp_set_var
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:29:50 -0700 Bart wrote:
BVA> On 03/16/16 15:04, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
BVA> > Since c99 uint64_t exists. Why do we need U64 in the first
BVA> > place?
A long long time ago we set c89 as our minimum requirement.
BVA> That's a good question. I think we cannot switch from s
10 matches
Mail list logo