![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> The text is written as if it's thinking about handling 64-bit > unsigned long, but it doesn't. The tables that map bits to > pixels are completely unprepared for this. > > I thought about widening the tables, but I thought they'd get > unreasonably large. There's no reason not to go ahead and > handle this 32-bits at a time. I thought the tables would come back to haunt us. The only reason the tables where introduced was for speed enhancements. I reason the code is extra complex was so you could pass 64 bits of data across the bus. I still like to see that happen still. What do you think? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:31 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||