On Saturday, July 15, 2023, Matthew Grooms <mgro...@shrew.net> wrote: > > > I don't know how to state it more clearly: Making binary copies of the > data structures is the problem. Something tells me that you'll continue to > ignore this, so I'll stop saying it.
Maybe this is where our disconnect is? Can you give me a pointer to the code for the data structures you're thinking of? When I say binary data, I'm thinking of the guest memory being saved.. Rob, I'm not hear to argue with you. Likewise, I don't feel like we are arguing..I look at this as trying to hash out a solution to the problem. I understand your stance is that the UPB patch solves the problem we're discussing. And I've given my reasons why the patch falls short. I've shared all the opinions I feel are relevant to the file format > proposal and would prefer not to waste the list's time. > I don't see how we are wasting the lists time. So far, we've stayed on topic and have kept it civil.
