Can someone remind me what the consensus is on the short form for unsigned
types? There seems to be a bunch of type changing going on (which is bad),
apparently to help windows builds (which is good, I suppose). But it doesn't
even seem consistent there:
@@ -573,7 +573,7 @@ netsnmp_compare_long(const void * lhs, const void * rhs)
}
typedef struct dummy_ulong_s {
- ulong index;
+ u_long index;
} dummy_ulong;
int
@@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ netsnmp_compare_int32(const void * lhs, const void * rhs)
}
typedef struct dummy_uint32_s {
- u_int32_t index;
+ uint32_t index;
} dummy_uint32;
so u_long, but uint32_t?
How about if we typedef these types in the net-snmp windows header so that we
don't have to keep changing them in the code?
And if we do have consensus one way or another, I suggest that we do a massive
switch to the preferred format before 5.6, and add a test to 'make checks' for
enforcing it before a release goes out... ANSI C99 defines the uint32_t form,
so I'd suggest we go with that as the default..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
