Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 17:27 +0300, Dorit Naishlos wrote: > > > > I don't think there was an intention to force recomputation - probably just > > overlooked what the third argument actually stands for. These occurrences > > could probably be changed to false. > > > > Yeah, i agree with dorit. > The only other possible reason i can think of is that it fixed a bug > somewhere due to not properly invalidating the cache, and that fix was > just copied around. >
Okay, then I'll try to bootstrap and test with these flags passed to false. Thanks.
