[ redirected from cygwin-developers. ]
On 04/10/2009 05:11, Charles Wilson wrote:
[ thread seriously necro'd! ]
Dave Korn wrote:
Charles Wilson wrote:
120 void
121 _pei386_runtime_relocator ()
122 {
123 static int was_init = 0;
124 if (was_init)
125 return;
126
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 05:54:29PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
[ redirected from cygwin-developers. ]
On 04/10/2009 05:11, Charles Wilson wrote:
[ thread seriously necro'd! ]
Dave Korn wrote:
Charles Wilson wrote:
120 void
121 _pei386_runtime_relocator ()
122 {
123 static int was_init
On 05/05/2010 18:56, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I like the idea but I have a few problems with this, some stylistic and
some implementation.
Stylistic:
Those all make sense to me, but I won't rework it yet until we've seen your
PoC/discussed further.
Implementation:
I don't like
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 07:58:20PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
On 05/05/2010 18:56, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I like the idea but I have a few problems with this, some stylistic and
some implementation.
Stylistic:
Those all make sense to me, but I won't rework it yet until we've seen your
On 05/05/2010 20:13, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Yeah, I realized that two seconds after sending the message. However,
is this particular problem really an issue for DLLs? DLLs should get
their data/bss updated after _pei386_runtime_relocator() is called. So
it seems like you'd get the same
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 08:48:28PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
On 05/05/2010 20:13, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Yeah, I realized that two seconds after sending the message. However,
is this particular problem really an issue for DLLs? DLLs should get
their data/bss updated after
On 05/05/2010 21:30, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I have something written now. I'll dig through the cygwin archives to
see if I can find the original message which started this but are there
other test cases that I could use to verify that I caught all of the
code paths in the DLL?
On 5/5/2010 3:13 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
That's basically it and I have it more-or-less coded but I haven't
finished thinking about DLLs. Maybe that's more complication than is
warranted. I have to do more research there. We could, and I think
should, put most of the code in
On 5/5/2010 4:30 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Chuck? Do you have anything I could use to test what I did?
Yes, most recent version attached. (embedded READMEs describe expected
output).
--
Chuck
pseudo-reloc-tests-v3.tar.bz2
Description: Binary data
