Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:04:05 +0300 (EET DST) From: Esa A E Peuha Sender: To: djgpp workers list Subject: Re: sbrk() storing the size of memory blocks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 Precedence: bulk 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/