From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20526 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2013 14:52:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 20517 invoked by uid 89); 6 Sep 2013 14:52:11 -0000 Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 14:52:11 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81E69116723; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:52:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id UVX6L3EPsfQG; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:52:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059E51166D4; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:52:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7506DE6AF9; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 07:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 14:52:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Trust readonly sections if target has memory protection Message-ID: <20130906145205.GF3001@adacore.com> References: <1378432920-7731-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <83txhymr02.fsf@gnu.org> <522990FF.30608@codesourcery.com> <83mwnqmj8f.fsf@gnu.org> <20130906130332.GE3001@adacore.com> <8361uem5yv.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8361uem5yv.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00240.txt.bz2 > > IMO, XP is probably the most ancient version that would be reasonable > > to support. Are people still developping on more ancient versions? > > If we support XP, extending support to Windows 2000 or even NT 4.0 > comes almost at no cost. IMO, there's no need to drop support for > platforms whose support doesn't impose any tangible maintenance > headaches. > > Windows 9X can be easily recognized at run time, and the feature that > is the subject of this thread can be turned off then. Perhaps a compromise: For the new feature to fail, it'd need an extremely ancient version of Windows, coupled with a bad program that writes outside of its memory area. How about we forgo the Windows 9x detection, and just enable the feature on Windows unconditionally? This removes the burden from Yao, who shouldn't be asked to do this work unless he wants to. Then, if someone believes it's necessary to turn the feature off by default on old versions of Windows, it should be easy for them to do so. -- Joel