On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:40 AM, wrote:
> I apologize up front for the length of this email. There are two items I'd
> like to submit to the net-snmp developers to consider for improving the
> software:
>
> 1) Static analysis results
> 2) Avoiding the use of C++ reserved words
>
> [ ... ]
>
Any
On 18 April 2011 11:26, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Any idea how CppCheck compares to sparse and which one would be suited best
> for analyzing Net-SNMP ?
In principle, I don't see why this needs to be either/or.
Surely we should aim for the code to pass *any* code checker?
Different checkers are l
I agree that different analyzers will probably catch different things and so
using multiple ones is a good idea. I haven't tried sparse before.
As for the findings I sent you all of them. The ones marked as errors are the
most useful ones. By providing all the findings, I did probably make too m
Can net-snmp 5.6.1 can be compiled to generate 64-bit binaries for
Solaris ? if yes, what option to pass on "configure " script. It appears
that by default, only 32-bit binaries are generated even if I am trying
to compile on 64-bit machine.
Thanks,
Vinay
---
Singh, Vinay wrote:
> Can net-snmp 5.6.1 can be compiled to generate 64-bit binaries for Solaris ?
> if yes, what option to pass on “configure “ script. It appears that by
> default, only 32-bit binaries are generated even if I am trying to compile on
> 64-bit machine.
Are you using gcc or Sun
Hi all,
I am trying to setup the port number for an snmp daemon that I wrote
based on an example I found on the web (pgsnmpd). I see that there is
a call to
netsnmp_ds_set_string(NETSNMP_DS_LIBRARY_ID,
NETSNMP_DS_LIB_OPTIONALCONFIG,
filename);
wh
