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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? Randall
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970713185609.15629>