"John S. Dyson" writes:
> > HOWEVER, my point still stands. I believe claims of improved
> > performance when I see reproduceable benchmarks. I believe claims of
> > portability when I see a port. I *know* that NetBSD's code ports well, 
> > because we spent years beating on it until it would. FreeBSD hasn't
> > finished one port from its original architecture. I would like to see
> > justification for claims of performance and portability -- not
> > theoreticals.
>
> Does that mean that the FreeBSD development should move forward,

Whether you move forward or not is your decision. We're merely
discussing the technical merits of the changes you made.

> and then when we  have reproduceable benchmarks on FreeBSD, then
> you can choose to adopt our code, or leave it be?

If you are saying that you have an experimental interface that might
have some performance benefits and might be portable, that's one
thing. The claim being made was that you have a clearly superior,
clearly better performing, and clearly portable interface, with the
"clearly" based on current evidence. If you are willing to back off
the claim that you have evidence that your interfaces are better
performing or portable based on your current information, I'll happily
cease asking for benchmarks and examples of portability.

Perry