On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:06:35 +0100 (BST) saifulla wrote:
SMA> Can it not be in _asn_parse_length_check()? If we do
SMA> it there, it would be better place, i guess. Because we
SMA> can avoid unnecessary while loop, if we do it there.
No, for several reasons. One, that function is used by almost all routines,
some of which can accept larger data. Second, the lenght is in bytes, and
there is direct correspondence between the number of bytes and the number of
subidentifiers, due to the way the encoding is done. We actually have to
extract all the subidentifiers before we'll know if we have too many.
--
NOTE: messages sent directly to me, instead of the lists, will be deleted
unless they are requests for paid consulting services.
Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie
Support: <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 the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
