On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 10:59:23PM +0800, JonY wrote:
>On 9/5/2012 22:48, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 09:46:45PM +0800, JonY wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2012 19:24, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
It differs a lot from the original source, so you might contemplate
to send a follow
On 9/5/2012 22:48, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 09:46:45PM +0800, JonY wrote:
>> On 9/3/2012 19:24, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> It differs a lot from the original source, so you might contemplate
>>> to send a follow up mail to the mingw-w64 devel with the attached
>>> patch.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 09:46:45PM +0800, JonY wrote:
>On 9/3/2012 19:24, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> It differs a lot from the original source, so you might contemplate
>> to send a follow up mail to the mingw-w64 devel with the attached
>> patch.
>
>It looks like mingw-w64 is already using it all
On 9/3/2012 19:24, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> It differs a lot from the original source, so you might contemplate
> to send a follow up mail to the mingw-w64 devel with the attached
> patch.
>
It looks like mingw-w64 is already using it all along according to Kai.
signature.asc
Description:
On Sep 3 19:02, JonY wrote:
> On 9/3/2012 18:35, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Sep 3 17:34, JonY wrote:
> >> On 9/3/2012 11:05, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >>> On 9/2/2012 1:51 PM, Jin-woo Ye wrote:
> Now it is clear that this patch would be needed other relevant projects
> such as mingw,
On 9/3/2012 18:35, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Sep 3 17:34, JonY wrote:
>> On 9/3/2012 11:05, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>> On 9/2/2012 1:51 PM, Jin-woo Ye wrote:
Now it is clear that this patch would be needed other relevant projects
such as mingw, mingw-w64. thanks for your effort on simp
On Sep 3 17:34, JonY wrote:
> On 9/3/2012 11:05, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > On 9/2/2012 1:51 PM, Jin-woo Ye wrote:
> >> Now it is clear that this patch would be needed other relevant projects
> >> such as mingw, mingw-w64. thanks for your effort on simplified one.
> >
> > Yes, while it is not requ
On 9/3/2012 11:05, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 9/2/2012 1:51 PM, Jin-woo Ye wrote:
>> Now it is clear that this patch would be needed other relevant projects
>> such as mingw, mingw-w64. thanks for your effort on simplified one.
>
> Yes, while it is not required that all of those systems stay exact
On 9/2/2012 1:51 PM, Jin-woo Ye wrote:
> Now it is clear that this patch would be needed other relevant projects
> such as mingw, mingw-w64. thanks for your effort on simplified one.
Yes, while it is not required that all of those systems stay exactly in
sync, there has been some effort in ensurin
On 2012-09-02 PM 7:27, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Hi Jin-woo,
On Aug 26 10:59, Jin-woo Ye wrote:
This patch fixes the problem making pseudo-reloc too slow when there
is many pseudo-reloc entries in rdata section by deciding when not
to call Virtual{Query,Protect} to save overhead.
I tested this pa
Hi Jin-woo,
On Aug 26 10:59, Jin-woo Ye wrote:
> This patch fixes the problem making pseudo-reloc too slow when there
> is many pseudo-reloc entries in rdata section by deciding when not
> to call Virtual{Query,Protect} to save overhead.
> I tested this patch and time taken for pseudo-reloc reduce
This patch fixes the problem making pseudo-reloc too slow when there is
many pseudo-reloc entries in rdata section by deciding when not to call
Virtual{Query,Protect} to save overhead.
I tested this patch and time taken for pseudo-reloc reduced 1800ms to
16ms for 3682 entries.
Please review thi
12 matches
Mail list logo