tor, 12.02.2004 kl. 01.51 skrev Alexandre Julliard:
> Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Incidentally, that means I also reversed his indentation suppression of
> > the arguments of these function pointers, but I don't see the "old"
> > indentation as a problem - after all, MIDL does not
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This patch fixes a potential deadlock in LdrLoadDll as it tries to call
> LdrUnloadDll with the loader lock held, resulting in deadlock once
> LdrUnloadDll also tries to enter the loader critical section.
> This only happens on process_attach failure.
Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Incidentally, that means I also reversed his indentation suppression of
> the arguments of these function pointers, but I don't see the "old"
> indentation as a problem - after all, MIDL does not suppress indentation
> of function pointer arguments, why sho
jeffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When browsing ntdll/heap.c I noticed that the condition set would
> cause a memory leak if the unlikely event ever occured. The patch
> causes a warning to be issued as well so that there is a record.
Why would it cause a memory leak? This thing is only used
Frank Schruefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -Remark in dlls/kernel/environ.c. Quote:
> "
> * WARNING: there's a Windows incompatibility lurking here !
> * Win32s always includes the full path of the program file,
> * whereas Windows NT only returns the full file path plus arguments
> * i
Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to the exec-shield paper, its effects can include revealing
> "bugs in applications that assume PROT_READ implies PROT_EXEC" due to the
> funky things it does with relocations into the ASCII-armour. Not sure but
> it might be worth ensuring mprote
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Frank Schruefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Was this patch forgotten/rejected?
Did you consider to provide a test suite as well to justify
the change?
Not really: It looks like there's already an existing test in
dlls/kernel/tests/environ.c.
This test is broken BTW *wit
"Cristóvão B. B. Dalla Costa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, in the company I work for we will replace a hundred or so PCs
> which run Windows with Linux PCs. The people using these PCs are the
> most clueless possible, and we want to avoid aggravation from them
> when/if the Wine debugger
Hello,
Before anyone flames me let me say that I'm perfectly aware of the
continuing effort of the Wine team for greater compatibility with
Windows applications, and that the debugger is instrumental in that quest.
However, in the company I work for we will replace a hundred or so PCs
which ru
> Log message:
> Don't request PROT_EXEC permissions when mapping an image file to
> avoid problems on noexec filesystems with kernel 2.6.
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/exec-shield/ANNOUNCE-exec-shield
According to the exec-shield paper, its effects can include revealing
"bugs in app
10 matches
Mail list logo
