[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict? |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:57:28 -0400 |
I have checked in this method now. I actually have an unexelf.c that
works
with exec-shield on now, but I have only tested it on Fedora Core 2. It
is probably too risky to check it in this close to a release.
I think we can. It should get enough testing. It's not as if there
were a dozen completely different systems that this had to support.
There is only one, with just a few variants that might raise this case.
- Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?, (continued)
- Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?, Richard Stallman, 2004/10/07
- Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?, Jan D., 2004/10/07
- Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?, Richard Stallman, 2004/10/08
- Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?, Jan D., 2004/10/11
- Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?, Richard Stallman, 2004/10/12
- Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?, Jan D., 2004/10/20
- Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?, Camm Maguire, 2004/10/22
- Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?, Jan D., 2004/10/25
- Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?, Camm Maguire, 2004/10/26
- Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?, Richard Stallman, 2004/10/27
- Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?, Jan D., 2004/10/27
Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?, Richard Stallman, 2004/10/05