Samba 2.2.8 (JYC 31-Mar-05 version) problem with records longer than 1022 bytes

[David J Dachtera]

I'm downloading the new .ZIPs as I write this.

They used to come with both VAX and Alpha .OLBs (any hope for I64?).

Will check into it as soon as the downloads finish...

David J Dachtera

At 06:58 PM 08/17/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>At 01:53 PM 8/17/2005 +0200, COLLOT Jean-Yves wrote:
>>A new version (20050817) is available at
>>http://www.pi-net.dyndns.org/anonymous/jyc/
>>
>>JYC
>>
>>-----Message d'origine-----
>>De : Rodney Kimber [mailto:Rodney.Kimber at vistacomp.com.au]
>>Envoyé : mercredi 17 août 2005 01:57
>>À : COLLOT Jean-Yves; samba-vms at lists.samba.org
>>Objet : RE: RE : Samba 2.2.8 (JYC 31-Mar-05 version) problem with records
>>longer than 1022 bytes
>>
>>Thanks for your prompt response.  Unfortunately I don't have the facility to
>>compile.  :-(    I will have to wait for your next release.
>>
>>Keep up the great work.
>>
>>Regards.
>
>I'm trying to compile 20050531 version with the change you suggested for long
>records on my VAX (VMS 7.3/DEC C  V6.4/TCPware V5.6-2) as I write this.
>
>:-( looks like I'll have to start over...
>
>So far, I've gotten warnings on 3 modules, about mismatched pointer types.
>Compiling CLIPRINT in LIBSMB
>                             &rparam, &rprcnt,                /* return 
>params, length */
>         .............................^
>%CC-W-PTRMISMATCH1, In this statement, the referenced type of the pointer
value
>  "&rprcnt" is "int", which is not compatible with "unsigned int" because they
>  differ by signed/unsigned attribute.
>                 At line number 91 in DU0:[SAMBA.SOURCE.LIBSMB]CLIPRINT.C;4.
>
>is a typical example.  The variables are rdrcnt and rprcnt in CLIPRINT and 
>CLIRAP,
>and rparam_count and rdata_count in CLISECDESC.
>
>Since these are warnings, I don't think it will effect the link, though I 
>have seen
>cases of C compiler warnings that produced unlinkable object modules (or maybe
>there's a qualifier on LINK that says it's okay to have warnings, and 
>whatever I was
>building didn't use the qualifier?  I don't see such a qualifier in HELP 
>LINK, but maybe
>there is something in the options file?)
>
>I just recompiled the same sources on an Alpha (V7.3-2, DEC C V6.5/TCPware 
>V5.6-2)
>and had no warnings.  DEC C 6.4 vs. 6.5 or an Alpha/VAX difference?
>
>If you need, I would be happy to upload the VAX object modules/libraries, 
>assuming it builds/links okay.
>Or would it be better to do over with the latest sources?
>
>
>John Santos
>
>
>PLEASE READ THIS IMPORTANT ETIQUETTE MESSAGE BEFORE POSTING:
>
>http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html