From owner-freebsd-current Mon Oct 11 19:59:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from jade.chc-chimes.com (jade.chc-chimes.com [216.28.46.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB7514BF9 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:59:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from billf@jade.chc-chimes.com) Received: by jade.chc-chimes.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C5C2C1C29; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:02:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jade.chc-chimes.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0EC13817; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:02:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:02:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Fumerola To: nnd@mail.nsk.ru Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernel broken? (pcm) In-Reply-To: <199910120257.JAA80657@wint.itfs.nsk.su> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 nnd@mail.nsk.ru wrote: > > We have enough breakages with the _documented_ kernel options that we > > don't need to go hunting down oddities. :> > > Does it mean that I throw away my PR with patches to > the 'newpcm' files which add 'abs' definition and therefore > make it possible to make kernel with > > makeoptions CONF_CFLAGS=-fno-builtin ? > > P.S. It seems to me that this option (or its absent) can > severely influence kernel run time efficience (not in the 'abs' > case, of course ;-). No. I was merely joking around. We welcome your patches. -- - bill fumerola - billf@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - billf@FreeBSD.org - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message