On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:30:43PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:40:49AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> >> wrote:
> >> And here, I don't even know w
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:40:49AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> > Any failure on the x86 init path can be catastrophic.
>> > A simple shift of a call from one place to anot
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:40:49AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Any failure on the x86 init path can be catastrophic.
> > A simple shift of a call from one place to another can
> > easily break things. Likewise adding a new call to
>
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Any failure on the x86 init path can be catastrophic.
> A simple shift of a call from one place to another can
> easily break things. Likewise adding a new call to
> one path without considering all x86 requirements
> can make certain x86
Any failure on the x86 init path can be catastrophic.
A simple shift of a call from one place to another can
easily break things. Likewise adding a new call to
one path without considering all x86 requirements
can make certain x86 run time environments crash.
We currently account for these requirem
5 matches
Mail list logo