On Mar 25, 2015 4:22 AM, "Paul Moore" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 25 March 2015 at 09:09, Antoine Pitrou <email@example.com> 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.
On a phone