From: Jorge S. S. <jsa...@gm...> - 2011-07-17 21:57:33
|
I think that the error comes from the fact that a long int in a 32-bits machine like mine has only 4 bytes, and not 8 as expected. So I guess that the type int64_t should be a long long int. > It's probably an error, and it's definitely possible nobody has ever > noticed. There's only one interface that has any 64-bit ints in a data > structure (the health interface,) and even then it looks like that > particular structure isn't mapped to any requests or commands anyway. Does > everything look ok in the generated xdr functions? > > Rich |
From: Jorge S. S. <jsa...@gm...> - 2011-09-06 09:45:32
|
Yes, declaring int64_t as long long int solves the problem for 32 bits architectures. I have submitted a patch. Thanks > So I guess that the type int64_t should be a long long int. >> It's probably an error, and it's definitely possible nobody has ever >> noticed. There's only one interface that has any 64-bit ints in a data >> structure (the health interface,) and even then it looks like that >> particular structure isn't mapped to any requests or commands anyway. Does >> everything look ok in the generated xdr functions? >> >> Rich |