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 que
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:
> typ
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
Kees Cook 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] outwe
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 03:44:35PM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Marcus Meissner 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 tha
Marcus Meissner 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 warn_unused_results
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
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
?
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 struc
