Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
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. :-)
My patch has been committed, tested, and MFCd. Thank you for your
debugging help, Umemoto-san.
--
Nate
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
