>>>>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:23:09 -0500, Robert Story <rst...@freesnmp.com> >>>>> said:
RS> Can someone remind me what the consensus is on the short form for unsigned RS> types? There seems to be a bunch of type changing going on (which is bad), RS> apparently to help windows builds (which is good, I suppose). But it doesn't RS> even seem consistent there: I actually thought, but can't seem to find it quickly, that we were testing for certain types and using them. It turns out, however, that we're really only testing for a few I think in configure.d/*types. I'd suggest it would be better to test for more than this. Certainly, consistency would be good though. I'd even argue that u_int32_t would be more sensible in your referenced patch and detecting the missing one and typedefing it to uint32_t if that exists, etc. -- Wes Hardaker Please mail all replies to net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
