On Mon, 8 May 2000, Bart Oldeman wrote:

> 2. Isn't there some double work going on here w.r.t. the cpuemu code,
> which is present in 0.99.x but not in 1.0.0?

I always remove not finished stuff when makeing a stable tree,
so 1.0.x has no cpuemu. For the upcoming 1.1.x there is a rework of
cpuemu pending, so we can't rely on the code in the near future anyway.
In any case a code optimized for vgaemu usage should be faster than
a generalized one withing cpuemu (running on intel machines), so I would
not have anything against a double implementation.

Hans
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Reply via email to