On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Dave Shield <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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!)
>
After this discussion my conclusion is that this patch is useful, but I
consider it unfortunate that another patch will be necessary on top of this
patch in order to make sure that the MIB behaves in the same way on 32-bit
and 64-bit systems.
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
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
