On Friday 16 January 2004 04:16, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Robert Lunnon bobl@optushome.com.au writes:
This is true, but it is not very time consuming. I had considered caching the cpuid results which would eliminate the multiple handling but didn't feel it was worth the effort. This function does not tend to get called often in windows programs (Usually once) but If you like I'll add the caching.
All that extra work is simply because you are adding abstractions where none are necessary. It looks like a bad case of Not Invented Here syndrome: you have already submitted that code a number of times, and I have already explained that it's way too complex for what we need, so I didn't put it in. Now someone else has done a simple implementation that works fine, and you are trying to replace it all once again with your original code that I already rejected. If you want to improve the cpuid support, please improve the existing code; as long as you keep pushing your all singing all dancing new implementation you won't get anywhere.
This is an incorrect charaterisation, but since you hold the keys to the cvs do as you wish.
BTW: As a side note to the maintainers of rewind, the rewind project is welcome to use all my patches also.
Bob