The checks for byte sizes of critical data structures have been added to ensure (enforce) binary compatibility
of midas with itself on different platforms (32-bit and 64-bit intel, on PPC, on ARM, etc).

This has worked well in the past and helped avoid problems and subtle bugs in the transition
from 32-bit to 64-bit machines a few years ago. Of course now 32-bit machines are back
as ARM CPUs and FPGA synthetic CPUs.

Replacing the checks with "computed" values will defeat this purpose because the values may be computed
differently on different machines.

Specifically as proposed by Stefan, sizeof(int) can change depending on the target machine and depending
on the compiler settings.

Of course this needs to be balanced against flexibility to adjust important settings like MAX_CLIENTS and MAX_EVENT_REQUESTS.

I would say the present system is just fine. You can change MAX_CLIENTS, rebuild MIDAS and it will not run (assert failure) giving
you an indication that you are doing something non-trivial that will cause problems if you do it without thinking about it.

For example, one may think nothing of changing midas.h and recompiling MIDAS. But having to change odb.c
may ring the little bell to tell you that you *also* have to rebuild *all* of your frontends. Even one unrebuilt frontend
will corrupt all shared memory and crash everything.

I guess one other way to look at this is as a balance between something a few people do rarely against
a function that protects everybody all the time.

That said, I think the checks should be reworked, instead of an assert failure they should give the error message
and tell the user exactly what number to adjust in the size test. Also some checks are obsolete, there is no longer
need to check the size of many ODB structures (equipment, etc). Once we are done with the db_get_record() rework,
only checks for data structures in shared memory shall remain.

As the bottom line, to change MAX_CLIENTS, you already have to edit midas.h, asking you to also edit odb.c does
not add much to the burden.

P.S. We are thinking how to make all these values dynamically changable, but basically it requires rolling out
a new binary-incompatible version of MIDAS with added bugs. Maybe some day.

K.O.


> The sizeof checks were originally invented by KO to check for binary compatibility between processes attached to the same ODB and event buffers. So if a 
> compiler generates different structure sizes due to different padding, one would see that immediately. I wonder however if the absolute numbers make sense 
> here. We could replace the 16444 by
> 
> NAME_LENGTH + 7*sizeof(INT) + MAX_CLIENTS *(NAME_LENGTH+13*sizeof(INT)+sizeof(float)+2*sizeof(DWORD)+MAX_EVENT_REQUESTS*4*sizeof(INT))
> 
> which makes this value automatically scale when one changes MAX_CLIENTS.
> 
> People of course have to be aware that if one changes MAX_CLIENTS, then all programs connected to the same ODB or event buffer need to be re-compiled 
> and the ODB needs to be re-created from an ASCII file, but at least this would avoid tedious manual calculations.
> 
> Any opinion?
> 
> Stefan
> 
> 
> > Below are the steps we used to increase the maximum number of frontends that we could run.
> > 
> > In midas.h
> > 
> > #define MAX_CLIENTS            64
> > 
> > changed to
> > 
> > #define MAX_CLIENTS            128
> > 
> > In msystem.h:
> > 
> > #define MAX_RPC_CONNECTION     64
> > 
> > changed to
> > 
> > #define MAX_RPC_CONNECTION     128
> > 
> > In odb.c:
> > 
> > assert(sizeof(BUFFER_HEADER) == 16444); 
> > 
> > GUESS: 256*64+60 = 16444, so change 64 to 128
> > 
> > changed to:                                                                                                                         
> > 
> > assert(sizeof(BUFFER_HEADER) == 32828); //256*128+60
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > DATABASE_HEADER = 64 + 64*DATABASE_CLIENT = 64 + 64*8256 = 528448
> > 
> > changed to:
> > 
> > DATABASE_HEADER = 64 + 128*DATABASE_CLIENT = 64 + 128*8256 = 1056832.