From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jul  9 12:23:57 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA02408
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 12:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bcarsde4.localhost (mailgate.nortel.ca [192.58.194.74])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA02400
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 12:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199707091923.MAA02400@hub.freebsd.org>
Received: from bcarsfbb.ott.bnr.ca (actually bcarsfbb.bnr.ca) 
          by bcarsde4.localhost; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 15:14:08 -0400
Received: from bnr.ca by bcarsfbb.bnr.ca id <20498-0@bcarsfbb.bnr.ca>;
          Wed, 9 Jul 1997 15:16:59 -0400
Date: 09 Jul 1997 15:16 EDT
To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
From: "Andrew Atrens" <atrens@nortel.ca>
Subject: Re: no SYSVSHM in GENERIC now..
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk



Does the X-server run any faster with MIT-SHM than without?
If it runs faster then I would vote to keep the stuff in GENERIC.

Andrew ( opinions mine, not Nortel's )


In message "no SYSVSHM in GENERIC now..", you write:

> >  Hmm, and why X work with GENERIC ?
> > (it' s print messages on console, but work fine)
> 
> Because it's not mandatory for the X server to support the MIT-SHM
> extention.  If you don't have it, it doesn't.
> 
> 					Jordan
>