Mike Lambert wrote:
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg11553.html
Thanks for this. I must have missed some parts of this discussion on the
list. Aligning the header pools could be an interesting approach, since
now a considerable amount of time is spent to determine if a pointer on
the sysem stack
> >>First and foremost, is there any compelling reason, to have totally
> >>different structures for PMCs and Buffers?
> >>- Both have a ->data aka ->bufstart
> >>- Both have ->flags, that have vastly the same meaning.
> >>
> >
> > As jason said in another message, Dan has changed his mind from
>
Mike Lambert wrote:
[ Unifying Buffer and PMC ]
> As jason said in another message, Dan has changed his mind from
> yesteryear, and decided that buffers and pmcs should be the same
> structure.
Roadmap
---
1) Hide Buffer and PMC internals, namely
- buflen
- bufstart
- flags
Mike Lambert wrote:
>>First and foremost, is there any compelling reason, to have totally
>>different structures for PMCs and Buffers?
>>- Both have a ->data aka ->bufstart
>>- Both have ->flags, that have vastly the same meaning.
>>
>
> As jason said in another message, Dan has changed his mind
> First and foremost, is there any compelling reason, to have totally
> different structures for PMCs and Buffers?
> - Both have a ->data aka ->bufstart
> - Both have ->flags, that have vastly the same meaning.
As jason said in another message, Dan has changed his mind from
yesteryear, and decide
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 09:28:41AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> First and foremost, is there any compelling reason, to have totally
> different structures for PMCs and Buffers?
The reasons stopped being compelling about a month or two ago, when it was
decided to unify the two. No one has had
