X-Authentication-Warning:	acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de: broeker owned process doing -bs
Date:	Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:11:39 +0200 (MET DST)
From:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
X-Sender:	broeker AT acp3bf
To:	djgpp workers list <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: sbrk() storing the size of memory blocks
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.OSF.4.30.0104300948310.15937-100000@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10104301403150.3437-100000@acp3bf>
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 Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Esa A E Peuha wrote:

> 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.

Yeah. You have to download the 'raw text' via the link at the bottom of
the page and run 'metamail -w' or a similar command on it to extract the
files.

> > 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.

Point taken.

> > 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.

Depends on what you assume attachments are meant for. Sending separate
files, or additional text to be viewed as part of the mail itself.
From the first point of view, assuming all attachments are binary is
a good thing: no risk to get it wrong and possibly corrupt files.

Looking at all the danger inline attachment expansion has brought to
the Outlook monoculture out there seems to hint that the latter point
of view is a safety risk waiting to strike.

> > 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.

Yes. But that's none of my business, as it wasn't me who commented out
those. For many of them, there's an explanatory comment explaining the
reason of deactivation, too.  I interpreted most of them as part of the
internal documentation. There's not exactly a good reason for keeping
them, but OTOH, they don't hurt too much, either.

-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

- Raw text -