Re: perl 5.23.2+ and net-snmp don't get along

2016-04-25 Thread Robert Story
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 s

Re: perl 5.23.2+ and net-snmp don't get along

2016-03-19 Thread Bart Van Assche
On 03/16/16 15:04, Magnus Fromreide wrote: > Since c99 uint64_t exists. Why do we need U64 in the first place? That's a good question. I think we cannot switch from struct counter64 to uint64_t because that would change the Net-SNMP ABI. Functions like asn_build_unsigned_int64() and snmp_set_var

Re: perl 5.23.2+ and net-snmp don't get along

2016-03-19 Thread Robert Story
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 12:28:14 -0400 Bill wrote: BF> > > > I think this needs some discussion. While the change does BF> > > > not affect binary compatibility, it does remove a typedef BF> > > > that has been around since 1998. It's possible and even BF> > > > likely that people are using this typede

Re: perl 5.23.2+ and net-snmp don't get along

2016-03-19 Thread Bill Fenner
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Magnus Fromreide wrote: > On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 02:59:55PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On 03/03/16 19:05, Robert Story wrote: > > > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:36:20 -0800 Bart wrote: > > > BVA> On 02/05/16 17:35, Robert Drake wrote: > > > BVA> > The perl guys a

Re: perl 5.23.2+ and net-snmp don't get along

2016-03-18 Thread Magnus Fromreide
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 01:33:14PM -0400, Robert Story wrote: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 12:28:14 -0400 Bill wrote: > BF> > > > I think this needs some discussion. While the change does > BF> > > > not affect binary compatibility, it does remove a typedef > BF> > > > that has been around since 1998. It'

Re: perl 5.23.2+ and net-snmp don't get along

2016-03-06 Thread Magnus Fromreide
On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 02:59:55PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 03/03/16 19:05, Robert Story wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:36:20 -0800 Bart wrote: > > BVA> On 02/05/16 17:35, Robert Drake wrote: > > BVA> > The perl guys apparently added a definition for U64 which > > BVA> > conflicts with

Re: perl 5.23.2+ and net-snmp don't get along

2016-03-05 Thread Bart Van Assche
On 03/03/16 19:05, Robert Story wrote: > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:36:20 -0800 Bart wrote: > BVA> On 02/05/16 17:35, Robert Drake wrote: > BVA> > The perl guys apparently added a definition for U64 which > BVA> > conflicts with the one in int64.h. Is it possible to add > BVA> > #ifdef guards to one de

Re: perl 5.23.2+ and net-snmp don't get along

2016-03-03 Thread Robert Story
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:36:20 -0800 Bart wrote: BVA> On 02/05/16 17:35, Robert Drake wrote: BVA> > The perl guys apparently added a definition for U64 which BVA> > conflicts with the one in int64.h. Is it possible to add BVA> > #ifdef guards to one definition or the other, or if one is BVA> > used i

Re: perl 5.23.2+ and net-snmp don't get along

2016-02-20 Thread Bart Van Assche
On 02/05/16 17:35, Robert Drake wrote: > The perl guys apparently added a definition for U64 which conflicts with > the one in int64.h. Is it possible to add #ifdef guards to one > definition or the other, or if one is used in a limited scope can the > name be changed? The U64 typedef has been rem

perl 5.23.2+ and net-snmp don't get along

2016-02-19 Thread Robert Drake
|The perl guys apparently added a definition for U64 which conflicts with the one in int64.h. Is it possible to add #ifdef guards to one definition or the other, or if one is used in a limited scope can the name be changed? In file included from /home/rdrake/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.23.4/lib