From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 31 18:14: 5 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from stephens.ml.org (cm2081634025.ponderosa.ispchannel.com [208.163.40.25]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B7014D8E for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:13:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tas@stephens.ml.org) Received: from stephens.ml.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stephens.ml.org (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id DAA39218; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 03:12:56 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from tas@stephens.ml.org) Message-Id: <199904010212.DAA39218@stephens.ml.org> To: John Polstra Cc: dillon@apollo.backplane.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG, Thomas Stephens From: Thomas Stephens Subject: Re: support for larger memory In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:12:54 PST." <199903310112.RAA18549@vashon.polstra.com> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:12:56 -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG John Polstra wrote: >In article <199903302319.PAA43671@apollo.backplane.com>, >Matthew Dillon wrote: >> >> Has anyone tried implementing the %ebx solution yet? > >Not as far as I know. I was hoping that somebody who cared about >BSD/OS compatibility would pick up the description of the fix, test >it, and submit diffs. No takers, so far. :-( I'll bite. I tried your fix this morning, and it's worked without a problem so far. I've just upgraded the world (had only built a kernel earlier), and haven't done any rigorous testing, but it looks good. I use the AT&T ksh for BSD/OS as my standard shell, which should be a reasonable test, but haven't got access to BSD/OS itself, so don't have much to test beyond the AT&T tools. Unless something goes wrong, I'll probably submit the diffs within the next day or so. Thomas Stephens tas@stephens.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message