On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:29:50 -0700 Bart wrote: BVA> On 03/16/16 15:04, Magnus Fromreide wrote: BVA> > Since c99 uint64_t exists. Why do we need U64 in the first BVA> > place?
A long long time ago we set c89 as our minimum requirement. BVA> That's a good question. I think we cannot switch from struct BVA> counter64 to uint64_t because that would change the Net-SNMP BVA> ABI. Functions like asn_build_unsigned_int64() and BVA> snmp_set_var_typed_value() would break if a pointer to a BVA> uint64_t would be passed instead of a pointer to a struct BVA> counter64. Yep. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
