On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:24 +0100 Richard wrote: RM> > Though I'm not sure we'd need explicit 64 bit types. (There is intmax_t RM> > for the case when you simply want the largest available int type.) I RM> > think the idea is more focused on explicit sizes for constrained types. RM> > RM> I think that there is a need to make a distinction between the data that RM> is carried in the snmp payload and between native OS values. RM> RM> Surely uint64_t and int64_t are needed for holding things like Counter64 RM> values.
Currently the library uses a structure of two longs to hold a counter64. Once we come up with a way to determine if a system is 32 bit or 64 bit, that could probably be updated to a single long. Then the problem is how to access it consistently. Maybe some macros? -- 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
