On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:54:27PM +, Dan Kegel wrote:
Hi Kees,
sure, supporting Fortify in Wine would be great, but it's not
clear how long it will take to fix Wine so it works with Fortify.
Which would you prefer:
1) have Wine broken for an unknown and possibly long time
or
2) have
Marcus Meissner mar...@jet.franken.de wrote:
Actually I would like to know if its just more than the dlls/shell32/pidl.c
problem...
It's the problem with any storage declared as something[1], there are plenty
of them in win32, and that's perfectly valid code.
(And of course also the stupid
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 03:44:35PM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Marcus Meissner mar...@jet.franken.de wrote:
Actually I would like to know if its just more than the dlls/shell32/pidl.c
problem...
It's the problem with any storage declared as something[1], there are plenty
of them in
Kees Cook k...@ubuntu.com writes:
It seems to me that disabling FORTIFY_SOURCE is a mistake. It offers
a great many protections, and virtually every distribution has very
intentionally turned on this compiler flag by default. Given Wine's
size[1], I would argue the benefits[2] outweigh
On 10/24/2010 12:32 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Actually I would like to know if its just more than the dlls/shell32/pidl.c
problem...
If you take a look at winternl.h you'll see number of structures there look
like:
typedef struct _foo {
ULONG length;
WCHAR buffer[1];
} foo, *pfoo;
Or
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 09:50:42AM -0600, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
On 10/24/2010 12:32 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Actually I would like to know if its just more than the dlls/shell32/pidl.c
problem...
If you take a look at winternl.h you'll see number of structures
there look like:
typedef
On 10/24/10 8:50 AM, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
On 10/24/2010 12:32 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Actually I would like to know if its just more than the
dlls/shell32/pidl.c
problem...
Or just grep for '\[1\]' in include directory. Lots and lots of
declarations in all different places.
Stoopid
Hi,
It seems to me that disabling FORTIFY_SOURCE is a mistake. It offers
a great many protections, and virtually every distribution has very
intentionally turned on this compiler flag by default. Given Wine's
size[1], I would argue the benefits[2] outweigh the hassle of rearranging
the structures
Hi Kees,
sure, supporting Fortify in Wine would be great, but it's not
clear how long it will take to fix Wine so it works with Fortify.
Which would you prefer:
1) have Wine broken for an unknown and possibly long time
or
2) have Wine working, but without Fortify, until the bugs are fixed
?
