On Mar 25, 2015 4:22 AM, "Paul Moore" <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 25 March 2015 at 09:09, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150325/39865c39/attachment.html>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4