Date:	Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:04:05 +0300 (EET DST)
From:	Esa A E Peuha <peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
Sender:	<peuha AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi>
To:	djgpp workers list <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: sbrk() storing the size of memory blocks
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10104271202580.1195-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID:	<Pine.OSF.4.30.0104300948310.15937-100000@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Esa A E Peuha wrote:

> OTOH, what's so bad about BASE64? Either you have a MIME-aware mailer, or
> you don't.

The mail archives at www.delorie.com aren't MIME-aware, for one (and
IMHO quite important) thing.

> If you do, BASE64 is no worse than QP or raw 8bit stuff.

Not exactly.  Base64 has a constant bloat of about 34%, whereas qp has
a variable bloat (which may be more or less than that of base64).  Any
reasonable program should choose the smaller one.

> If you don't, QP can be just as unreadable as anything else.

Certainly, but qp can be very readable, while base64 is always
unreadable.

> And no, DOS line endings were not the reason why PINE decided to
> encode it at all --- I dtou'ed the file before bringing it.

Then it seems that Pine encodes any attachment, which is not a very
good design.

> > Do we really need the "#if 0"'d part here, or anywhere else in crt0.S?
> > These unused sections are available in CVS, if anyone should need them,
> > and crt0.S certainly wouldn't be too easy to read even without them. :-)
>
> That particular block I left in mainly because I simply didn't know for
> sure whether the problem I thought I found here actually exists.

What about the other blocks?  There are many of them in crt0.S.

-- 
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/

- Raw text -