Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 19:39:03 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Mike Heffner <mheffner@vt.edu> Cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>, FreeBSD-audit <FreeBSD-audit@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: lam(1) patch Message-ID: <200102080239.f182d3997909@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Feb 2001 21:11:43 EST." <XFMail.20010207211143.mheffner@vt.edu> References: <XFMail.20010207211143.mheffner@vt.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <XFMail.20010207211143.mheffner@vt.edu> Mike Heffner writes: : Even though our implementation is inlined, I think I'll take : Warner's suggestion so that it's clear. As I found out in the : following, it wasn't what I would have expected: Yes. That's the point I was trying to make. At one time your xlower #define was considered "standards conforming" but times have changed. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102080239.f182d3997909>