On 23 March 2010 11:44, Bart Van Assche <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally I consider the fact that the patch does not have the same effect
> on 32-bit systems as on 64-bit systems as a flaw.
>
> There is yet another shortcoming in the patch that I hadn't mentioned yet:
> limiting values to 0x7fffffff introduces a regression for those platforms
> where sizeof(int) == 8. While reporting large (>= 2**31) disk statistics
> currently works fine for those platforms, this patch breaks it.
But signed values larger than 2**31 (and unsigned values > 2**32)
will be truncated to 32-bits by the library anyway.
(See CHECK_OVERFLOW_S in 'asn1.c')
Remember that the MIB objects are inherently 32-bit, so anything
outside the range 0..2^32-1 (for Unsigned32) or -2^31..2^31-1
(for Integer32) isn't a valid SNMP value.
But it sounds as if you're voting no for this patch being included.
Which is fair enough - that's the point of putting it out to vote.
(Of course, if no-one else chips in, then *none* of
these patches will be included!)
>> What if:
>> a) 'netsnmp_get_mib_directory' was added to
>> win32/libsnmp_dll/libsnmp.def ?
>> or
>> b) The update to snmp/agent.c was omitted?
>> (i.e. just issue the message when "module not found"
>> errors are printed)
>
> Both approaches seem OK to me. Can you please post an updated patch ?
Jusrt edit the previous patch file to omit the last two files.
(i.e. delete everything from the line "Index: agent/snmpd.c")
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
