Is samba 64bit safe ? (PR#19852)

Darren Reed darrenr at
Fri Aug 27 07:34:06 GMT 1999

> Darren Reed wrote:
> > Ack.  This sounds like a missing prototype for crypt().
> 	Yup: Interestingly, the generated code (.s) looks
> 	like it's handling the pointer properly in both
> 	cases.  Probably just to subtle for this dummy (;-))

I added -Xc to the command line for SUNWspro/cc and found that
it also complained about integer/pointer problems for strdup(),
mktemp() and setting sa_handler at the top of CatchSignal() in
lib/signal.h.  On Solaris7 (at least), sa_handler is
void (* _handler)().

These warnings also cropped up:

"smbd/nttrans.c", line 2009: warning: integer overflow detected: op "<<"
"smbd/nttrans.c", line 2018: warning: integer overflow detected: op "<<"
"smbd/nttrans.c", line 2027: warning: integer overflow detected: op "<<"
"smbd/nttrans.c", line 2141: warning: integer overflow detected: op "<<"

which sounds, to me, like missing L's or UL's on the end of numerical
constants in #define's.  Checking <include/smb.h> showed this to be the
case - some of the #define's are for (1L<<x) and some are just (1<<x).
That -Xc doesn't like "long long" or the bit field things (netinet/ip.h),
isn't so much of a worry :)

Adding in extra prototypes for strdup() and mktemp() to one of the .h
files appears to have fixed the problem of smbd core dumping on Solaris7
when compiled as a 64bit binary (using -xarch=v9) with SUNWspro 5.0's cc.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list