Re: [PATCH] Add an additional relocation attempt pass to load_after_fork()

2011-04-06 Thread Jon TURNEY
On 05/04/2011 17:21, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 05:03:43PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote: On 04/04/2011 15:39, Christopher Faylor wrote: I'm trying to imagine a scenario where it would screw up to just do the reserve_upto + reserve the low block and I can't think of one. It's

Re: [PATCH] Add an additional relocation attempt pass to load_after_fork()

2011-04-06 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 12:54:42PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote: On 05/04/2011 17:21, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 05:03:43PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote: On 04/04/2011 15:39, Christopher Faylor wrote: I'm trying to imagine a scenario where it would screw up to just do the

Re: [PATCH] fix make after clean

2011-04-06 Thread Yaakov (Cygwin/X)
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 10:52 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: The last time I reported that I was using relative paths in the gcc/binutils/winsup directory I was told Don't do that. It isn't supported. However, I'll move the call to Makefile.common earlier in Makefile.in. Thanks for the