On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 12:39:41AM +0300, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> I didn't know about using weakref for this but I'm fine with the approach.
> Just
> one thing: can we condition it on HAVE_ASM_USCORE test instead of platform?
Interestingly it is set to 0 for x86_64 MinGW and other
I didn't know about using weakref for this but I'm fine with the approach.
Just one thing: can we condition it on HAVE_ASM_USCORE test instead of
platform?
Le jeu. 4 avr. 2024, 23:47, Daniel Kiper a écrit :
> Adding Ard, Glenn and Dave...
>
> First of all, sorry for late reply but I was busy wit
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 04:27:39PM -0500, Glenn Washburn wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:43:22 +0300
> "Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko" wrote:
>
> > stack protector needs symbols with just one underscore in C
> > name unlike unix variant that needs double underscore.
> > Supply both symbols for sim
Adding Ard, Glenn and Dave...
First of all, sorry for late reply but I was busy with other stuff...
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 09:43:22PM +0300, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> stack protector needs symbols with just one underscore in C
> name unlike unix variant that needs double underscore.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:43:22 +0300
"Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko" wrote:
> stack protector needs symbols with just one underscore in C
> name unlike unix variant that needs double underscore.
> Supply both symbols for simplicity
>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Serbinenko
>
Instead of essentially
stack protector needs symbols with just one underscore in C
name unlike unix variant that needs double underscore.
Supply both symbols for simplicity
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Serbinenko
--
Regards
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
0001-STACK_PROTECTOR-Support-symbols-emitted-by-windows-c.patch
Des
