At 13:54 17/09/2003, Marcus Börger wrote:
Here you go :-)
As you can see i need one additional emalloc in compile which should be ok
but also one additional emalloc/lowercase operation for dynamic function
calls with static function names. That is you are going to use a function
prior to declaring
Hello Andi,
Wednesday, September 17, 2003, 6:07:40 AM, you wrote:
> At 10:10 PM 9/16/2003 +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:
>>Hello Andi,
>>
>>Tuesday, September 16, 2003, 9:37:40 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> > I think this patch is fine.
>> > I think (1) can be fixed quite easily. What do you mean when you sa
At 10:10 PM 9/16/2003 +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:
Hello Andi,
Tuesday, September 16, 2003, 9:37:40 PM, you wrote:
> I think this patch is fine.
> I think (1) can be fixed quite easily. What do you mean when you say that
> (2) would result in a performance decrease? Would this only be in an error
Hello Andi,
Tuesday, September 16, 2003, 9:37:40 PM, you wrote:
> I think this patch is fine.
> I think (1) can be fixed quite easily. What do you mean when you say that
> (2) would result in a performance decrease? Would this only be in an error
> situation or also during regular runtime?
>>2)
I think this patch is fine.
I think (1) can be fixed quite easily. What do you mean when you say that
(2) would result in a performance decrease? Would this only be in an error
situation or also during regular runtime?
Andi
At 01:05 PM 9/12/2003 +0200, Marcus Börger wrote:
Hello internals,
a
