Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:14:41 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> 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 Message-ID: <20050310071441.GB16318@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3213.1110401840@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <422F5D94.4030702@freebsd.org> <3213.1110401840@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050310071441.GB16318>