Hi Brian,
On Wed, 1 May 2019, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 08:39:22PM +0200, Alban Gruin wrote:
> > -Og also exists to debug[0], even if it’s far less known. Perhaps it’s
> > better to check for -g (and its variants[1]) as the user clearly states
> > their intent to debug th
Hi Alban,
On Wed, 1 May 2019, Alban Gruin wrote:
> Le 01/05/2019 à 00:41, Johannes Schindelin a écrit :
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2019, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> >
> >> [had to add Dscho as recipient manually, mind you]
> >
> > I usually pick up responses to GitGitGadget patch series even if I am not
>
Hi Jonathan & Peff,
On Wed, 1 May 2019, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Jeff King wrote:
>
> > I wonder if this points to this patch touching the wrong level. These
> > compiler flags are a thing that _some_ builds want (i.e., production
> > builds where people care most about security and not about deb
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 08:39:22PM +0200, Alban Gruin wrote:
> -Og also exists to debug[0], even if it’s far less known. Perhaps it’s
> better to check for -g (and its variants[1]) as the user clearly states
> their intent to debug the resulting binary, rather than checking for
> special cases.
I
Hi,
Jeff King wrote:
> I wonder if this points to this patch touching the wrong level. These
> compiler flags are a thing that _some_ builds want (i.e., production
> builds where people care most about security and not about debugging),
> but not necessarily all.
>
> I'd have expected this to be
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 06:41:29PM -0400, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > I'm a bit concerned that this breaks my debug sessions where I use -O0.
> > But I'll test without -O0 before I really complain.
>
> Weird. Jameson Miller also mentioned this very concern in an internal
> review.
>
> I guess
Hi Johannes,
Le 01/05/2019 à 00:41, Johannes Schindelin a écrit :
> Hi Hannes,
>
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2019, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>
>> [had to add Dscho as recipient manually, mind you]
>
> I usually pick up responses to GitGitGadget patch series even if I am not
> on explicit Cc: (but it might take
Am 01.05.19 um 00:41 schrieb Johannes Schindelin:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2019, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>> Am 29.04.19 um 23:56 schrieb İsmail Dönmez via GitGitGadget:
>>> diff --git a/config.mak.uname b/config.mak.uname
>>> index e7c7d14e5f..a9edcc5f0b 100644
>>> --- a/config.mak.uname
>>> +++ b/config.mak.
Hi Hannes,
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> [had to add Dscho as recipient manually, mind you]
I usually pick up responses to GitGitGadget patch series even if I am not
on explicit Cc: (but it might take a couple of days when I am too busy
elsewhere to read the Git mailing list).
> A
[had to add Dscho as recipient manually, mind you]
Am 29.04.19 um 23:56 schrieb İsmail Dönmez via GitGitGadget:
> From: =?UTF-8?q?=C4=B0smail=20D=C3=B6nmez?=
>
> Enable DEP (Data Execution Prevention) and ASLR (Address Space Layout
> Randomization) support. This applies to both 32bit and 64bit b
From: =?UTF-8?q?=C4=B0smail=20D=C3=B6nmez?=
Enable DEP (Data Execution Prevention) and ASLR (Address Space Layout
Randomization) support. This applies to both 32bit and 64bit builds
and makes it substantially harder to exploit security holes in Git by
offering a much more unpredictable attack sur
11 matches
Mail list logo