Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 18:56:09 -0400 From: Randall Hopper <rhh@ct.picker.com> To: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> Cc: multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: guspnp9 feedback Message-ID: <19970713185609.15629@ct.picker.com> In-Reply-To: <199707132210.PAA00422@rah.star-gate.com>; from Amancio Hasty on Sun, Jul 13, 1997 at 03:10:41PM -0700 References: <19970713163210.43120@ct.picker.com> <199707132210.PAA00422@rah.star-gate.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Amancio Hasty: |Luigi took out the mem_start since it was not been used. |Have you try out guspnp9 with your awe? |> < long attach_awe_obsolete(long mem_start, struct address_info *hw_config); |> > void attach_awe_obsolete(struct address_info *hw_config); No, I hadn't. That was the purpose of the first message in this thread; to let you guys know about compile problems and the change that wasn't flowed everywhere. As to the apropriate fix for this: this routine currently returns a pointer to its malloced sample memory if successful, and 0 if not. Is it now assumed that the malloc will always succeed? Or should the malloc move someplace else based on the redesigns you and Luigi are doing? Randallhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970713185609.15629>