Robert Lunnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is true, but it is not very time consuming. I had considered caching the > cpuid results which would eliminate the multiple handling but didn't feel it > was worth the effort. This function does not tend to get called often in > windows programs (Usually once) but If you like I'll add the caching.
All that extra work is simply because you are adding abstractions where none are necessary. It looks like a bad case of Not Invented Here syndrome: you have already submitted that code a number of times, and I have already explained that it's way too complex for what we need, so I didn't put it in. Now someone else has done a simple implementation that works fine, and you are trying to replace it all once again with your original code that I already rejected. If you want to improve the cpuid support, please improve the existing code; as long as you keep pushing your all singing all dancing new implementation you won't get anywhere. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
