[PATCH 3/9] python/netsnmp/client_intf.c: Fix compiler warnings

The only functional change in this patch is that a "" argument is changed into NULL. According to the Python documentation NULL is a valid argument. From the Python C API documentation: The format may be NULL, indicating that no arguments are provided. See also https://docs.python.org/2/c-api/o

[PATCH 4/9] snmplib, MIBs, Python: Fix gcc 8 warnings

Avoid that gcc 8 complains about incompatible function casts. This patch does not change any functionality. --- .../if-mib/ifXTable/ifXTable_interface.c | 21 +++ .../snmpNotifyFilterTable_interface.c | 26 --- .../udp-mib/data_access/udp_endpoint_common.c

Re: [PATCH for master / request for votes] configure.ac: Fix recently introduced autoreconf warnings

ve AC_AIX from NBVNSC> > configure.d/config_os_progs into configure.ac. NBVNSC> > Additionally, since AC_AIX is obsolete, use NBVNSC> > AC_USE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS instead. This patch fixes all NBVNSC> > instances of the following autoreconf warnings:

Re: [PATCH for master / request for votes] configure.ac: Fix recently introduced autoreconf warnings

AC_USE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS instead. This patch fixes all instances of the following autoreconf warnings: +1 /Niels -- Niels Baggesen - @home - Århus - Denmark - [email protected] The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers --- R W Hamming

[PATCH for master / request for votes] configure.ac: Fix recently introduced autoreconf warnings

instances of the following autoreconf warnings: configure.d/config_os_progs:98: warning: AC_COMPILE_IFELSE was called before AC_USE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS ../../lib/autoconf/specific.m4:432: AC_AIX is expanded from... configure.d/config_os_progs:98: the top level configure.d/config_os_progs:98

Re: Using -Wno-implicit-fallthrough creates warnings

lthrough annotations in the > Net-SNMP source code". I wonder if it might be better to try > -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2 instead. > > This has the advantage that the older compiler knows it doesn't support it: > checking whether the compiler supports -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2... no &

Antw: Re: Using -Wno-implicit-fallthrough creates warnings

>>> Bill Fenner schrieb am 12.04.2017 um 16:36 in Nachricht : [...] > Since there's no obvious way to check whether or not the compiler > *actually* supports this warning flag, I'm fine leaving things as they are. Did you play with "gcc --help=warnings | gre

Re: Using -Wno-implicit-fallthrough creates warnings

t the older compiler knows it doesn't support it: checking whether the compiler supports -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2... no and has a more generous regexp for matching fallthrough comments, so may still silence the warnings. Bart, are you wi

Re: Using -Wno-implicit-fallthrough creates warnings

t; > Indeed. [net-snmp] checking whether the compiler supports -Wno-implicit-fallthrough... yes What's weird is that the "I don't support -Wno-implicit-fallthrough" warning only appears when the file being complied elicits some other warning, so this method of checking f

Re: Using -Wno-implicit-fallthrough creates warnings

> commit fdea26d1057bd67f0d6cdca65cd5761006fc777a > > Author: Bart Van Assche > > Date: Sun Apr 9 21:05:18 2017 -0700 > > > > gcc 7: Add -Wno-implicit-fallthrough > > > > Apparently gcc 7 does not recognize the fallthrough annotations in > >

Using -Wno-implicit-fallthrough creates warnings

503a86d462e4b88f4cc2419c5da2f3327 > > commit fdea26d1057bd67f0d6cdca65cd5761006fc777a > Author: Bart Van Assche > Date: Sun Apr 9 21:05:18 2017 -0700 > > gcc 7: Add -Wno-implicit-fallthrough > > Apparently gcc 7 does not recognize the fallthrough annotations in &

Re: Fixing warnings in snmplib/snmpksm.c

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:38:36PM +0100, Niels Baggesen wrote: > I would like to solicit some input on the changes that I made to get > it to compile and quell warnings, so would some of you who has a > Kerberos setup please look at the attached dif? The important point > is the fir

Re: Fixing warnings in snmplib/snmpksm.c

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:31:11 +0100, Niels Baggesen > said: NB> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:22:16PM +0100, Magnus Fromreide wrote: >> Chunk 4 looks marvelous. How did this ever compile? NB> I have no idea if this ever compiled :-) It is certainly some years NB> ago last time It was def

Re: Fixing warnings in snmplib/snmpksm.c

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:01:32AM +0100, Magnus Fromreide wrote: > There is the third option as well: > > "%" NETSNMP_PRIz "u", LENGTH_something > > The drawback is that it is even longer but the advantage is that it is > correct on both 32 and 64-bit platforms, but then, so are the ot

Re: Fixing warnings in snmplib/snmpksm.c

On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 23:31 +0100, Niels Baggesen wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:22:16PM +0100, Magnus Fromreide wrote: > > Chunk 4 looks marvelous. How did this ever compile? > > I have no idea if this ever compiled :-) It is certainly some years > ago last time :-) > > Chunk 5-12: Why pri

Re: Fixing warnings in snmplib/snmpksm.c

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:22:16PM +0100, Magnus Fromreide wrote: > Chunk 4 looks marvelous. How did this ever compile? I have no idea if this ever compiled :-) It is certainly some years ago last time > Chunk 5-12: Why print lengths as signed integers? Lazyness. Then you only have to change one

Re: Fixing warnings in snmplib/snmpksm.c

On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 22:38 +0100, Niels Baggesen wrote: > In my eternal quest for warnings I now hit snmpksm, which did not even > compile on my standard CentOS setups :-( > > I would like to solicit some input on the changes that I made to get it > to compile and quell warnings

Fixing warnings in snmplib/snmpksm.c

In my eternal quest for warnings I now hit snmpksm, which did not even compile on my standard CentOS setups :-( I would like to solicit some input on the changes that I made to get it to compile and quell warnings, so would some of you who has a Kerberos setup please look at the attached dif

Re: Warnings generated by autoheader on configure.ac

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:47:14AM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: > Hello, > > When I run aclocal -I m4 && libtoolize --copy && autoconf && autoheader on > the Net-SNMP trunk I get the following warnings (autoconf version 2.63 / for > the autogen.sh scr

Warnings generated by autoheader on configure.ac

Hello, When I run aclocal -I m4 && libtoolize --copy && autoconf && autoheader on the Net-SNMP trunk I get the following warnings (autoconf version 2.63 / for the autogen.sh script, see also https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2827646&group_id=126

Configure warnings

AIX 5.3 (5300-08-01-0819) gcc 3.3.2 configure: WARNING: pthread.h: present but cannot be compiled configure: WARNING: pthread.h: check for missing prerequisite headers? configure: WARNING: pthread.h: see the Autoconf documentation configure: WARNING: pthread.h: section "Present But Canno

Re: duplicate registration warnings reappearing in trunk?

On tis, 2008-05-27 at 16:00 +0100, Dave Shield wrote: > 2008/5/19 Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > 2008/5/18 Magnus Fromreide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> The interesting thing from my point of view is that scalar registers > >> and answers with the value for .0 and with NO_SUCH_OBJECT > >> other

Re: duplicate registration warnings reappearing in trunk?

2008/5/18 Magnus Fromreide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The interesting thing from my point of view is that scalar registers > and answers with the value for .0 and with NO_SUCH_OBJECT > otherwise Does it? I must check and fix that. It ought to return noSuchInstance for . requests. > whereas sca

Re: duplicate registration warnings reappearing in trunk?

On lör, 2008-05-17 at 13:14 +0100, Dave Shield wrote: > 2008/5/11 Magnus Fromreide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I stupidly trusted the helpers to do the right thing and tried to > > register > > > > snmp.[1-6].0 > > snmp.[8-22].0 > > snmp.[24-29].0 > > snmp.30.0 > > > > as scalar_groups (and a scalar)

Re: duplicate registration warnings reappearing in trunk?

2008/5/11 Magnus Fromreide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I stupidly trusted the helpers to do the right thing and tried to > register > > snmp.[1-6].0 > snmp.[8-22].0 > snmp.[24-29].0 > snmp.30.0 > > as scalar_groups (and a scalar) but the problem is that they all try to > register snmp in order to return

Re: duplicate registration warnings reappearing in trunk?

Could you please test again with r16935. That fixes the roblem for me. /MF - This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use pri

Re: duplicate registration warnings reappearing in trunk?

On sön, 2008-05-11 at 23:54 +0200, Thomas Anders wrote: > Does anyone else see the messages Yes - I do see it. > netsnmp_assert !"registration != duplicate" failed agent_registry.c:666 > netsnmp_subtree_load() > netsnmp_assert !"registration != duplicate" failed agent_registry.c:666 > netsnmp_sub

duplicate registration warnings reappearing in trunk?

Does anyone else see the messages netsnmp_assert !"registration != duplicate" failed agent_registry.c:666 netsnmp_subtree_load() netsnmp_assert !"registration != duplicate" failed agent_registry.c:666 netsnmp_subtree_load() netsnmp_assert !"registration != duplicate" failed agent_registry.c:666 ne

Re: How can I get rid of these warnings?

Thanks that worked great Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 20/07/07, Need Help wrote: > Robert indicated the following: > > "These are harmless. You can copy the prototypes from the appropriate > headers, if you want to eliminate the warning." > > . however, I am not sure wh

Re: How can I get rid of these warnings?

On 20/07/07, Need Help <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert indicated the following: > > "These are harmless. You can copy the prototypes from the appropriate > headers, if you want to eliminate the warning." > > . however, I am not sure what this means, so can someone please explain > this to m

How can I get rid of these warnings?

Listed below are a couple of warnings which are produced which are created when I compile the "subagent" code file (ie: ocStbHostMib_subagent.c). I was informed these warnings could simply be ignored, however, it seems the compiler our work uses does not like any warnings to exist a

Re: Subagent warnings produced (Implicit declaration of function)

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Need wrote: NH> ocStbHostMib_subagent.c: In function `main': NH> ocStbHostMib_subagent.c:53: warning: implicit declaration of function `init_ocStbHostAVInterfaceTable' NH> ocStbHostMib_subagent.c:59: warning: implicit declaration of function `init_vacm_

Subagent warnings produced (Implicit declaration of function)

Does anyone know if these "warnings" I am seeing are normal? Need Help <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I created the "ocStbHostMib_subagent_Makefile" file which is based off of the Makefile syntax generated by "mib2c.mfd.conf". I created the "ocStbHostMib_s

Re: rfc: add/remove warnings for 5.4?

On 17/08/06, Wes Hardaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > DS> I believe we'd agreed to keep shipping the "ucd-snmp/extensible" > DS> module code but we'd drop it from the default build. > > DS> Is now the right time to make that change? > > I think it's the right time, yes. OK - Done. [Just happ

Re: rfc: add/remove warnings for 5.4?

On 22/08/06, Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shouldn't we also align everything to output the new disman/event name > instead of the former disman/event-mib, then? Yes. > Is there anyone else who thinks this is confusing? Yes. Fixed. Dave (the monosyllabic)

Re: rfc: add/remove warnings for 5.4?

Dave Shield wrote: >> TA> I tend to think that e.g. the disman/event-mib warnings aren't as >> TA> appropriate as in 5.3 anymore and should be relaxed. >> >> I'd tend to agree. > > I'd tend to have removed the warning, then :-) Shouldn't

Re: rfc: add/remove warnings for 5.4?

Thomas Anders wrote: > Are there any legacy features waiting to be deprecated? Or, the other way around, are there any optional modules that now should be included by default? What about tcp-mib, udp-mib, ip-mib/ipv4InterfaceTable and/or ip-mib/ipv6InterfaceTable (all for Linux), Robert? +Thomas

Re: rfc: add/remove warnings for 5.4?

On 17/08/06, Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1, as long as there aren't any significant unresolved bug tracker items for > agent/extend vs. "ucd-snmp/extensible". Are there any? I'm not aware of any. But then, I wouldn't expect them to come to light until *after* we make the change. A

Re: rfc: add/remove warnings for 5.4?

Robert Story wrote: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:56:53 -0700 Wes wrote: > WH> > "DS" == Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > WH> > WH> DS> I believe we'd agreed to keep shipping the "ucd-snmp/extensible" > WH> DS> module code, [...] > WH> > WH> DS> Is now the right time to make that change?

Re: rfc: add/remove warnings for 5.4?

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:56:53 -0700 Wes wrote: WH> > "DS" == Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: WH> WH> DS> I believe we'd agreed to keep shipping the "ucd-snmp/extensible" WH> DS> module code, [...] WH> WH> DS> Is now the right time to make that change? [...] WH> WH> I think it's the r

Re: rfc: add/remove warnings for 5.4?

> "DS" == Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DS> I believe we'd agreed to keep shipping the "ucd-snmp/extensible" DS> module code, so individual admins could configure it into the agent DS> (and restore the previous behaviour) - but we'd drop it from the DS> default build. DS> Is now the

Re: rfc: add/remove warnings for 5.4?

> TA> I tend to think that e.g. the disman/event-mib warnings aren't as > TA> appropriate as in 5.3 anymore and should be relaxed. > > I'd tend to agree. I'd tend to have removed the warning, then :-) > TA> we've been discussing (and adding) warn

Re: rfc: add/remove warnings for 5.4?

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 01:01:38 +0200 Thomas wrote: TA> we've been discussing (and adding) warnings for 5.3 back then, e.g. the TA> configure warning for disman/event-mib vs. disman/event and the TA> "deprecated" warning for exec. ... TA> I tend to think that e.g. the disma

rfc: add/remove warnings for 5.4?

-Coders, we've been discussing (and adding) warnings for 5.3 back then, e.g. the configure warning for disman/event-mib vs. disman/event and the "deprecated" warning for exec. Are there proposals for adding/removing similar warnings in 5.4? Are there any legacy features waiting t

Re: warnings generated by compile

elieve more recent releases may fix these warnings. I apologize, it was the latest release of net-snmp -- 5.1.4. It works fine; just said to let you know... Lynette --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, securi

Re: warnings generated by compile

ot be compiled Thanks. you didn't say which version of net-snmp you were using, but we believe more recent releases may fix these warnings. -- Wes Hardaker Sparta, Inc. --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, se

warnings generated by compile

solaris 2.8, sparc sun4u, openssl 0.9.6, compiling with cc (forte C 6.2) configure: WARNING: sys/socketvar.h: present but cannot be compiled configure: WARNING: sys/socketvar.h: check for missing prerequisite headers? configure: WARNING: sys/socketvar.h: see the Autoconf documentation config

Re: rfc: "deprecated" warnings in 5.3?

On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 23:21 +0100, Thomas Anders wrote: > Dave Shield wrote: > > As far as "exec" is concerned, there's already a warning message for > > the relocatable form of this directive (which is the important one). > > We probably need to bump up the strength of this message for 5.3. > > A

Re: rfc: "deprecated" warnings in 5.3?

Dave Shield wrote: As far as "exec" is concerned, there's already a warning message for the relocatable form of this directive (which is the important one). We probably need to bump up the strength of this message for 5.3. Are you going to? I think we've agreed upon it and now seems to be the

Re: rfc: "deprecated" warnings in 5.3?

> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:15:50 +0100, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Dave> The only other candidates for "deprecated" directives that spring Dave> to mind would be "r[ow]{community,user}" - assuming we want to push Dave> people towards the new "auth{community,user}" directives instead.

Re: rfc: "deprecated" warnings in 5.3?

On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 10:15:50AM +0100, Dave Shield wrote: > On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 11:04 +0200, Thomas Anders wrote: > > what do people think about adding "deprecated" warnings (documentation > > and runtime) to directives like "exec" (what else?) in 5.3? Or i

Re: rfc: "deprecated" warnings in 5.3?

On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 11:04 +0200, Thomas Anders wrote: > what do people think about adding "deprecated" warnings (documentation > and runtime) to directives like "exec" (what else?) in 5.3? Or is 5.3 > considered too early for this? Depends on the directive.

rfc: "deprecated" warnings in 5.3?

-Coders, what do people think about adding "deprecated" warnings (documentation and runtime) to directives like "exec" (what else?) in 5.3? Or is 5.3 considered too early for this? For exec vs. extend, this would probably call for more verbosity on "extend&

Re: net-snmp warnings

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:00:04 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NO> i get like 10 of those warnings wasn't fast enough to copy them all but NO> .. hell that many might want u to do a check ur self .. NO> NO> configure: WARNING: net/if_var.h: present but cannot be compiled Yes, we a

net-snmp warnings

i get like 10 of those warnings wasn't fast enough to copy them all but .. hell that many might want u to do a check ur self .. hecking net/if_types.h presence... yes checking for net/if_types.h... yes checking net/if_var.h usability... no checking net/if_var.h presence... yes conf

RE: Warnings

Thanks, I just followed the instructions. :) -Original Message- From: Robert Story [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 5:54 AM To: Ike Eisenschmidt Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Warnings On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:54:58 -0800 Ike wrote: IE

Re: Warnings

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:54:58 -0800 Ike wrote: IE> SunOS quarks 5.8 Generic_108528-19 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-100 Thanks. These warning can safely be ignored. -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie Support: Archive:

Warnings

SunOS quarks 5.8 Generic_108528-19 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-100 gcc --version gcc (GCC) 3.4.2 configure: WARNING: netinet/tcpip.h: present but cannot be compiled configure: WARNING: netinet/tcpip.h: check for missing prerequisite headers? configure: WARNING: netinet/tcpip.h: see the Autoco

Re: Warnings from configure - net-snmp-5.2.1

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:12:19 -0500 (EST) Igor wrote: IB> tcp wrappers are still broken Broken how? -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie Support: Archive: You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards

Re: Warnings from configure - net-snmp-5.2.1

;host disman/event-mib ucd-snmp/diskio smux agentx mibII/mta_sendmail" --with-cc=gcc I got the following warnings saying to report the warnings to this address: checking netinet/tcpip.h usability... no checking netinet/tcpip.h presence... yes configure: WARNING: netinet/tcpip.h: present but cannot b

RE: Warnings from configure - net-snmp-5.2.1

>I ran the following configure script for Solaris 9: >./configure --with-mib-modules="host disman/event-mib ucd-snmp/diskio smux >agentx mibII/mta_sendmail" --with-cc=gcc >I got the following warnings saying to report the warnings to this address: >configure:

Warnings from configure - net-snmp-5.2.1

I ran the following configure script for Solaris 9: ./configure --with-mib-modules="host disman/event-mib ucd-snmp/diskio smux agentx mibII/mta_sendmail" --with-cc=gcc I got the following warnings saying to report the warnings to this address: checking netinet/tcpip.h usability... n

RE: solaris configure (and compile) warnings

--- Bruce Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wasn't aware that it was a Solaris-specific issue. I've compiled under > linux and gotten similar warning messages. then perhaps it's dependent on some other factor. for me at least, i get the warnings using solaris 8,

RE: solaris configure (and compile) warnings

I wasn't aware that it was a Solaris-specific issue. I've compiled under linux and gotten similar warning messages. > NS> the results of initial testing are that i can just ignore the warnings > NS> (both the configure and compile warnings) and that the resulting snmp

Re: solaris configure (and compile) warnings

--- Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:49:54 -0800 (PST) No wrote: > NS> the results of initial testing are that i can just ignore the warnings > NS> (both the configure and compile warnings) and that the resulting snmp > build > NS> is

Re: solaris configure (and compile) warnings

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:49:54 -0800 (PST) No wrote: NS> the results of initial testing are that i can just ignore the warnings NS> (both the configure and compile warnings) and that the resulting snmp build NS> is still working fine. (at least to the extent that it has been tested.) Yes

Re: solaris configure (and compile) warnings

--- No Spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i have yet to determine if i can indeed just ignore these warnings, or if > they > present a more serious problem. the results of initial testing are that i can just ignore the warnings (both the configure and compile warnings) and that the

Re: solaris configure (and compile) warnings

--- No Spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > woops, i meant to attach a file that only had the configure part. it looks > like i attached the full configure and make and make install in case it matters here, i'm using gcc-3.2.3 although the initial warnings i reported perta

Re: solaris configure (and compile) warnings

--- No Spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > when running configure on net-snmp on a solaris 8 system, i get a bunch of > warnings like the following: > this behavior is present on both the latest production release of net-snmp > (5.2) and the latest release available for download

Re: solaris configure (and compile) warnings

--- No Spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i will attach output of configuring net-snmp 5.2 using autoconf 2.59 and > automake 1.9 (i'm not positive if automake matters as well or just autoconf, > excuse my ignorance). i can provide further output (of gmake and/or other > permutations of autoconf/a

Re: net-snmp compile warnings

> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:17:54 -0200, Danilo Chilene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: Danilo> I get this warning when i upgrade net-snmpd with portugrade -a under Danilo> FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE Thanks. You can probably ignore those if everything else works. -- Wes Hardaker Sparta -

net-snmp compile warnings

configure: WARNING: net/route.h: present but cannot be compiled configure: WARNING: net/route.h: check for missing prerequisite headers? configure: WARNING: net/route.h: see the Autoconf documentation configure: WARNING: net/route.h: section "Present But Cannot Be Compiled" configure: WARN