From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 10 07:14:48 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2236C16A4CE; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:14:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail22.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail22.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.133.160]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFDB543D4C; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:14:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (c211-30-75-229.belrs2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.75.229]) j2A7Ehw0032011 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:14:44 +1100 Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (localhost.alcatel.com.au [127.0.0.1])j2A7Eg7l016398; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:14:42 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from pjeremy@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au) Received: (from pjeremy@localhost)j2A7EfKg016397; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:14:41 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from pjeremy) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:14:41 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy To: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-ID: <20050310071441.GB16318@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <422F5D94.4030702@freebsd.org> <3213.1110401840@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3213.1110401840@critter.freebsd.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libmd Makefile sha256.3 sha256.h sha256c.c shadriver.c src/sbin/md5 Makefile md5.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:14:48 -0000 On Wed, 2005-Mar-09 21:57:20 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >Since all these functions are really just memcpy() overdosed on LSD, >I can't see _any_ reason why the kernel and userland would need different >versions, much less why different pieces of the kernel or userland >would. memcpy() may not be the best counter-example. Based on a quick look in HEAD, we have 4 MI and 13 MD versions of memcpy() as well as 3 MI and 11 MD versions of bcopy(). I agree that not all of them are built. -- Peter Jeremy