Back on to a different subject...has anyone looked at the libm section? I am curious as to how much of a performance increase that would add if we can get it working.
On 7/23/05, Ian McCulloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Matt Randolph wrote: > > > Sean Johnson wrote: > > > > > LOL! > > > That must be for the folk that don't mind patching glibc, but will get > > > upset if memcpy does strange things. :) > > > > > > > > > > You try to do a good turn and they laugh at you. That'll teach me. > > Heh ;-) I would like to see a version of memcpy.c that DOES do something > malicious, without being completely obvious. This isn't Windows, a > seg-fault isn't going to take down the kernel, or corrupt the filesystem;) > > Cheers > Ian > -- > [email protected] mailing list > > -- [email protected] mailing list
