Re: bgpd use long long instead of int64_t

2019-02-19 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 09:28:36AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:10:25AM +0100, Andreas Kusalananda Kähäri wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:11:03PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:59:38 +0100 > > > > From: Claudio Jeker > > > > > > >

Re: bgpd use long long instead of int64_t

2019-02-19 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:10:25AM +0100, Andreas Kusalananda Kähäri wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:11:03PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:59:38 +0100 > > > From: Claudio Jeker > > > > > > In some places bgpd just wants something bigger then a 32bit int. > > > In

Re: bgpd use long long instead of int64_t

2019-02-18 Thread Andreas Kusalananda Kähäri
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:11:03PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:59:38 +0100 > > From: Claudio Jeker > > > > In some places bgpd just wants something bigger then a 32bit int. > > Instead of using int64_t or u_int64_t use (unsigned) long long which is at > > least 64bit

Re: bgpd use long long instead of int64_t

2019-02-18 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 02:24:52PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Claudio Jeker wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:11:03PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:59:38 +0100 > > > > From: Claudio Jeker > > > > > > > > In some places bgpd just wants something bigger th

Re: bgpd use long long instead of int64_t

2019-02-18 Thread Theo de Raadt
Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:11:03PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:59:38 +0100 > > > From: Claudio Jeker > > > > > > In some places bgpd just wants something bigger then a 32bit int. > > > Instead of using int64_t or u_int64_t use (unsigned) lo

Re: bgpd use long long instead of int64_t

2019-02-18 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:11:03PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:59:38 +0100 > > From: Claudio Jeker > > > > In some places bgpd just wants something bigger then a 32bit int. > > Instead of using int64_t or u_int64_t use (unsigned) long long which is at > > least 64bit

Re: bgpd use long long instead of int64_t

2019-02-18 Thread Theo de Raadt
Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:59:38 +0100 > > From: Claudio Jeker > > > > In some places bgpd just wants something bigger then a 32bit int. > > Instead of using int64_t or u_int64_t use (unsigned) long long which is at > > least 64bit and therefor good enough. Makes the mes

Re: bgpd use long long instead of int64_t

2019-02-18 Thread Mark Kettenis
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:59:38 +0100 > From: Claudio Jeker > > In some places bgpd just wants something bigger then a 32bit int. > Instead of using int64_t or u_int64_t use (unsigned) long long which is at > least 64bit and therefor good enough. Makes the mess with type definition > of int64_t

bgpd use long long instead of int64_t

2019-02-18 Thread Claudio Jeker
In some places bgpd just wants something bigger then a 32bit int. Instead of using int64_t or u_int64_t use (unsigned) long long which is at least 64bit and therefor good enough. Makes the mess with type definition of int64_t on various systems go away (including a bunch of type casts). While there