}- If some people with '40 and RZ3 could look into RZ3SetHWCloc(): at the end
}- of this function you'll find the following statements:
}-         *(acm + (ACM_CURSOR_POSITION+0)) = x & 0xff;
}-         *(acm + (ACM_CURSOR_POSITION+1)) = x >> 8;
}-         *(acm + (ACM_CURSOR_POSITION+2)) = y & 0xff;
}-         *(acm + (ACM_CURSOR_POSITION+3)) = y >> 8;
}- now... if ANYONE has an idea why the above statements work for '30ies, but
}- will just plain skip the third statement on a '40, *please* tell me...

Compiler bug maybe? Which brings a few questions up in me. I understand
that gcc has gone some way ahead of its port to NetBSD. Now in the
advent (hopefully) of the '060 it might be better to let the gcc people
add support for it and then reintroduce the newest gcc to NetBSD. I
believe the core team is against this in some ways, but it IS just an
idea. (Besides, they might have fixed the above bug if it really is
a compiler optimization bug ... :)

-- Aleksi Suhonen
[ So nobody else is interested in the 060 port of NetBSD than me
  and the swedish guy? Neither of us have any real experience in
  kernel hacking :-(                                             ]