On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Wes Hardaker <
harda...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> >>>>> 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.
>
As far as I know u_int32_t comes from BSD and is not in C99. uint32_t is
defined by C99 though. So why should it be endorsed that both u_int32_t and
uint32_t are used in Net-SNMP source code while only one of these two
datatypes occurs in an ANSI/ISO standard ?
Bart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
