On Wed, 2 Apr 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 1 22:25, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> > I changed the code to use the struct directly, and amazingly the dll was
> > the exact same size after stripping. I then tried building the udis86/*.c
> > with -ffunction-sections -fdata-sect
On Apr 1 10:25, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > Oh, Jeremy, here's a question. We only add udis86 to the main branch.
> > What about the 3.6 branch, does it still need a patch to accommodate
> > the fast_cwd magic for a newer, upcoming W
On Apr 1 22:25, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> > > And btw., I checked the file size again, and it turns out that after
> > > stripping the debug symbols the DLL takes ~30
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > And btw., I checked the file size again, and it turns out that after
> > stripping the debug symbols the DLL takes ~30 pages or 120 K more memory
> > than before udis86. I hope that's ok
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Oh, Jeremy, here's a question. We only add udis86 to the main branch.
> What about the 3.6 branch, does it still need a patch to accommodate
> the fast_cwd magic for a newer, upcoming Windows version?
I was going to ask about that too. I assume the
On Apr 1 10:12, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar 31 15:48, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 31 13:58, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Jeremy,
>
On Mar 31 15:48, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > On Mar 31 13:58, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Jeremy,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, I approved your request on swa
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar 31 13:58, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jeremy,
> > >
> > > Thank you, I approved your request on sware. You now have
> > > write-after-approval permissions, so please cont
Hi Mark,
On Mar 31 23:41, Mark Wielaard via Overseers wrote:
> Hi Corinna, Hi Jeremy,
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:06:24PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen via Overseers
> wrote:
> > On Mar 31 13:58, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > Thank
On Mar 31 13:58, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > Hi Jeremy,
> >
> > Thank you, I approved your request on sware. You now have
> > write-after-approval permissions, so please continue to send patches to
> > cygwin-patches first and wait f
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Thank you, I approved your request on sware. You now have
> write-after-approval permissions, so please continue to send patches to
> cygwin-patches first and wait for approval from Takashi, Jon or me.
I tried to push this patchset bu
Hi Jeremy,
On Mar 31 10:19, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Jeremy, I don't think you have push perms to the Cygwin repo.
>
> If you want to push your own patches and are willing to review patches
> on this list occassionally (especially when I'm on one of my longish
> vacations), see the handy dandy l
On Mar 30 19:45, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
>
> > ++#if defined (__i386__)
> > + static const BYTE thunk[] = "\x8b\xff\x55\x8b\xec\x5d\x90\xe9";
> > -+#elif defined(__x86_64__)
> > ++ static const BYTE thu
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> ++#if defined (__i386__)
> + static const BYTE thunk[] = "\x8b\xff\x55\x8b\xec\x5d\x90\xe9";
> -+#elif defined(__x86_64__)
> ++ static const BYTE thunk2[0];
> ++#elif defined (__x86_64__)
> + /* see
> +
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Series looks good to me, just one question to clarify:
>
> On Mar 29 18:54, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> > v4:
> > fixes x86_64-on-aarch64 on Windows 11 22000.
>
> Does aarch64 use entirely different build numbers? Just ask
Hi Jeremy,
Series looks good to me, just one question to clarify:
On Mar 29 18:54, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote:
> v4:
> fixes x86_64-on-aarch64 on Windows 11 22000.
Does aarch64 use entirely different build numbers? Just asking because
22000 looks unusually low. The latest release bu
16 matches
Mail list logo
