On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Simo Sorce wrote:
> It was decided to fix the mangling char to '~', lp__mangling_char() was
> maintained for compatibility with the old style module.
> We choosed also to fix it at seventh char position to avoid broken
> applications that make assumptions on the mangling char
It was decided to fix the mangling char to '~', lp__mangling_char() was
maintained for compatibility with the old style module.
We choosed also to fix it at seventh char position to avoid broken
applications that make assumptions on the mangling char and also moved
every unusable char to be displa
Richard Sharpe wrote:
>
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>
> > Richard Sharpe wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Having looked at mangle_hash2, it is clear that the mangling char is hard
> > > coded. I am sure this is not intended.
> > >
> > > Should I fix it?
> >
> > While tridge wo
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> Richard Sharpe wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Having looked at mangle_hash2, it is clear that the mangling char is hard
> > coded. I am sure this is not intended.
> >
> > Should I fix it?
>
> While tridge would be a much better one to comment, I will s
Richard Sharpe wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Having looked at mangle_hash2, it is clear that the mangling char is hard
> coded. I am sure this is not intended.
>
> Should I fix it?
While tridge would be a much better one to comment, I will say this:
The new mangling scheme was designed to be very fast,
Hi,
Having looked at mangle_hash2, it is clear that the mangling char is hard
coded. I am sure this is not intended.
Should I fix it?
Regards
-
Richard Sharpe, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
