On Mar 25, 2015 4:22 AM, "Paul Moore" email@example.com wrote:
On 25 March 2015 at 09:09, Antoine Pitrou firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I'm not sure we guarantee anything. In any case, it's only a small proportion of the kind of crashes you can get by messing the signature.
Fair point. I guess what I'm asking is, would it be OK to remove the code that checks for a stack size discrepancy and raises ValueError, and the tests that verify this behaviour, as part of switching to using upstream libffi directly?
On a related note, is there any information available on how the "externals" repo is maintained? In particular, should things in there be exact copies of upstream, or is it OK to include extra data (in this case, the results of running "configure" for the Windows build)? It works for me either way, it's just a matter of how the build process would be structured and maintained.
Its not extremely clear how it's "supposed to be" done; look at the differences between how we handle OpenSSL and Tcl/Tk, for example. One way or the other, though, we will store the configure output so that our build doesn't depend on any more than it absolutely has to.
-- Zach On a phone