From owner-freebsd-current Tue Mar 30 15:20: 0 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684A714FF8 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:19:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id PAA43671; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:19:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:19:38 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199903302319.PAA43671@apollo.backplane.com> To: Brian Handy Cc: Kelly Yancey , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: support for larger memory References: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :> So, I'm curious, why is it that we needed to break BSDI compatibility in :>order to support large memory configurations. It would seem that the two :>shouldn't be mutually exclusive. : :Or, perhaps, we broke BSDI compatibility for a lot of people (?) at the :expense of those few people who are running > 1GB... : : : :Brian Has anyone tried implementing the %ebx solution yet? -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message