Hi, >>>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:06:12 -0800 >>>>> Nate Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
nate> Thank you for tracking this down. It is interesting that BIF is nate> heavyweight while BST is not. I guess that is expected behavior by OEMs nate> which only test on Windows and so not everyone makes BIF simple. On my nate> laptops, BIF is as fast as BST. You are welcome. My laptops are also fast enough for BIF. I remembered that iwasaki-san grouched at the heavyweight of BIF when he was writing cmbat support. nate> I don't like the patch approach (changing the API), however. Let me nate> look at it and commit a fix that doesn't change the API. Yes, I didn't feel satisfaction with my patch, too. So, I anticipated that you say so. :-) Sincerely, -- Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED],jp.}FreeBSD.org http://www.imasy.org/~ume/ _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
