On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

: > : Since these options are quite simply not useful to whole classes of users,
: > : and they *do* bloat the kernel, and that *does* hurt performance, we should
: > : not blindly include them in all of our example configurations; particularly
: > : not those for small machines!
: >
: > They're in GENERIC for a reason:  those are "generic" configurations meant
: > to run with nearly all optional components enabled.  The same argument could
:
: Did I say "in GENERIC"?  No, I didn't.  I said "all of our example
: configurations", which is pretty much the case.  Why take issue with
: something I didn't actually say?

GENERIC *is* our example configuration.  There's a couple extras on some
ports, like FOURMEG et al, and those intended for small memory machines
probably don't need the COMPAT_<number>.  But in general, our example
configurations include COMPAT_<number> because they're generalized example
configs.

: > (This is really a matter of differing brain wavelengths further into this
: > thread.  My response was meant to address your initial comment that "the
: > impact of COMPAT_<number> should be in a FAQ", implying that somehow

Sorry, this wasn't your comment, but one from Jed Davis, to which I
replied about the non-impact on critical code paths, and then you replied
about code size being an issue.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <tv@wasabisystems.com>  *  Wasabi & NetBSD:  Run with it.
-- CDs, Integration, Embedding, Support -- http://www.wasabisystems.com/