On Tue 23 Mar 2004 21:48:31 -0500,
David Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The affect on data structures that may be part of the module
interfaces is potentially more serious. It might also be a non-issue
if none of the affected data structures are part of module interfaces.
I haven't looked
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 11:29:03AM -0500, Rik Faith wrote:
On Tue 23 Mar 2004 21:48:31 -0500,
David Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The affect on data structures that may be part of the module
interfaces is potentially more serious. It might also be a non-issue
if none of the affected data
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 05:06:28PM -0800, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
This sounds like it will completely break binary compatibility.
It looks like it does change the size of some data structures and
the data types of some fields. Whether these changes affect the
module interfaces is something that
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, David Dawes wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 05:06:28PM -0800, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
This sounds like it will completely break binary compatibility.
It looks like it does change the size of some data structures and
the data types of some fields. Whether these changes
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:26:37AM -0800, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, David Dawes wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 05:06:28PM -0800, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
This sounds like it will completely break binary compatibility.
It looks like it does change the size of some data
[I posted this last Monday, but it got held for moderation because it
was slightly over 100KB with the patch uncompressed. I've compressed
the patch for this posting. --Rik Faith]
Throughout the DMX (dmx.sf.net) work, we have been submitting patches
for bug fixes and/or self-contained code as we
