On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 20:04 -0400, Robert Story wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:02:19 +0100 Dave wrote:
> DS> Perhaps when the chaos of the 5.2.2 and 5.3 releases has
> DS> died down, we could return to this again.
>
> Yeah, right! If I hand a nickel for every issue we've tabled,
> never to be seen
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:02:19 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> Perhaps when the chaos of the 5.2.2 and 5.3 releases has
DS> died down, we could return to this again.
Yeah, right! If I hand a nickel for every issue we've tabled, never to be seen
again... ;-)
(and what are you doing online at such an hour?)
--
DS> The difficulty is that it would blow a massive hole in
DS> the principle of backward compatability. *All*
DS> existing programs that use the Net-SNMP libraries
DS> would need to be changed to match
> I don't think that's true. The compiler generally accepts differently
> named types so long a
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:29:53 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> Replacing all int/long declarations with suitable
DS> int32_t/int64_t (or unsigned equivalents) would be
DS> a tedious but fairly straightforward process. The
DS> difficulty is that it would blow a massive hole in
DS> the principle of backward c
On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 11:38 -0700, rwilcox wrote:
> --- Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Knowing full well that it is a waste of my time to
> > do so, I proposed a mega search/replace of all ints
> > and longs with the new int32_t, with cleanup for
> > int64_t where needed.
> >
>
> I
--- Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:08:37 -0700 Wes wrote:
> WH> rwilcox> This is a problem for me because after
> enginetime exceeds
> WH> rwilcox> 65535, I begin receiving REPORT-PDUs
> and then I see other
> WH> rwilcox> corruption I am currently attributing
>
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:08:37 -0700 Wes wrote:
WH> rwilcox> This is a problem for me because after enginetime exceeds
WH> rwilcox> 65535, I begin receiving REPORT-PDUs and then I see other
WH> rwilcox> corruption I am currently attributing to this 4 byte vs 2
WH> rwilcox> byte issue.
WH>
WH> Err...
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:15:45 -0700 (PDT), rwilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
rwilcox> This is a problem for me because after enginetime exceeds
rwilcox> 65535, I begin receiving REPORT-PDUs and then I see other
rwilcox> corruption I am currently attributing to this 4 byte vs 2
rwilcox>
