On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 14:02 +0100, Mark Probst wrote:
> Hey Sebastien,
>
> > Now one thing remains unanswered, could you share your lights on:
> >
> >> static gboolean
> >> method_is_safe (MonoMethod *method)
> >> {
> >> -/*
> >> +/* FIXME: look
Hey Sebastien,
> Now one thing remains unanswered, could you share your lights on:
>
> > static gboolean
> > method_is_safe (MonoMethod *method)
> > {
> > - /*
> > + /* FIXME: looks somewhat incomplete
> >
> > I think this is just dead co
Hello Mark,
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 10:58 +0100, Mark Probst wrote:
> Hi Sebastien,
>
> Apart from what Rodrigo said I only two tiny issues with the patch.
> First it would be nice if you could split it up between the part that
> handles field access, the part that handles wrappers and the part tha
Hi Sebastien,
Apart from what Rodrigo said I only two tiny issues with the patch.
First it would be nice if you could split it up between the part that
handles field access, the part that handles wrappers and the part that
handles the image stuff. And then there's this:
+ for (i = 0; i < 1
> void
> -mono_security_enable_core_clr (void);
> +mono_security_enable_core_clr (const char *prefix);
>
> This breaks our ABI, we can't change that function this way.
> I know it's a silly requirement for a function that hardly anyone
> could be using, but
> breaking our ABI should not be taken
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Sebastien Pouliot <
sebastien.poul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Rodrigo,
>
> > static gboolean
> > method_is_safe (MonoMethod *method)
> > {
> > -/*
> > +/* FIXME: looks somewhat incomplete
> >
> > I think this is just dead code used during the initia
Hello Rodrigo,
Sorry I should have said that the "platform detection" part is still "in
flux". I sent an email earlier to moonlight-list on this subject (but
it's stuck in moderation since I used the wrong email address).
Thanks
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 11:48 -0300, Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
> Hi Seba
Hi Sebastien,
I have some comments on parts of your mono changes:
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
#include "security-core-clr.h"
gboolean mono_security_core_clr_test = FALSE;
+char* mono_security_core_clr_prefix = NULL;*
*
Why this field is not static?
Why do we even need it? mono_security_enable_core_clr
Hello,
With the set of attached patches all existing moon-unit tests pass. It
also pass the SecurityCriticalTest[1] - which calls from application
code (i.e. transparent) every visible SL2 API decorated as Critical.
The runtime patch mainly avoid unneeded, repetitive calls so it should
help perfo
