Jonathan Worthington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I was looking over the WinXP Service Pack 2 Changes to functionality
document, which you can get here:-
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechn
ol/winxppro/maintain/winxpsp2.asp (download available in
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
JIT code is run in malloc'ed memory (s. jit.c:1026) as well as JITted
NCI stubs. We already have some system specific stuff for JIT (some
architectures need a page flush before execution).
So best would be to use a set of spcialized function, e.g.:
-
Peter Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
JIT code is run in malloc'ed memory (s. jit.c:1026) as well as JITted
NCI stubs. We already have some system specific stuff for JIT (some
architectures need a page flush before execution).
So best would be to use a set of
Ah, that's the reason for your bug report WRT JIT/NCI. The question is,
how can we detect the presence of the exec-shield patch. Your `uname -a`
doesn't indicate it.
What for? We just always do allocating memory from a JIT dedicated heap with
execute flas set on it, no matter the presence of
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
So we need:
1) a config test/option/whatever (e.g. mallocing some mem, fill in a
ret instruction and call that.
2) Some means to allocate executable memory.
Could you please have a look at fedora (kernel) docs?
There are two ways to flag memory as executable:
1) A
Vladimir Lipsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, that's the reason for your bug report WRT JIT/NCI. The question is,
how can we detect the presence of the exec-shield patch. Your `uname -a`
doesn't indicate it.
What for? We just always do allocating memory from a JIT dedicated heap with
execute
Peter Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
So we need:
1) a config test/option/whatever (e.g. mallocing some mem, fill in a
ret instruction and call that.
2) Some means to allocate executable memory.
Could you please have a look at fedora (kernel) docs?
There are two
From: Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vladimir Lipsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, that's the reason for your bug report WRT JIT/NCI. The question is,
how can we detect the presence of the exec-shield patch. Your
`uname -a`
doesn't indicate it.
What for? We just always do allocating
Hi,
I was looking over the WinXP Service Pack 2 Changes to functionality
document, which you can get here:-
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechn
ol/winxppro/maintain/winxpsp2.asp (download available in Word format)
One change is that for all capable
hello there (and especially the JIT team),
is anybody working on JIT-enabling the Win32 platform?
I've done some work on this (using MASM as an assembler
and VisualC's DUMPBIN as a disassembler instead of the
GNU as and objdump).
I have a somewhat-working Parrot/Jit/MSWin32-x86.pm
hello there (and especially the JIT team),
is anybody working on JIT-enabling the Win32 platform?
I've done some work on this (using MASM as an assembler
and VisualC's DUMPBIN as a disassembler instead of the
GNU as and objdump).
I have a somewhat-working Parrot/Jit/MSWin32-x86.pm
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Aldo Calpini wrote:
hello there (and especially the JIT team),
is anybody working on JIT-enabling the Win32 platform?
Yes, the new JIT will work (actually, it works) on Windows, probably you
didn't read the TODO, says '(currently on hold, waiting for JIT v2)', so
Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
is anybody working on JIT-enabling the Win32 platform?
Yes, the new JIT will work (actually, it works) on Windows, probably you
didn't read the TODO, says '(currently on hold, waiting for JIT v2)', so,
as soon as the the code is in you will be able to use the JIT
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Aldo Calpini wrote:
it was really nice to work on it anyway. I have learned alot of things, and
would like to suggest an 'enhancement' to Configure.pl.
if the compiler is 'cl' (that is, Visual C++), and you invoke Configure.pl
with --debugging, it should add '-DDEBUG
At 12:29 PM -0300 5/10/02, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Aldo Calpini wrote:
also, to inspect core_ops.c in the debugger (instead of the not-so-helpful
core.ops), I had to comment all the #line directives in core_ops.c.
I hate that too.
If you want to throw in a patch to
15 matches
Mail list logo
