X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1570903657;
	bh=fSlLQt1n9y3ZEZtC4GgCrwO+fka+Q3dhE4Wgqee2O88=;
	h=In-Reply-To:From:Date:References:To:Subject:Message-ID;
	b=siUpPgV/fG991Du3Bj4OpRWrNNPattowzElsg+O7sknm0qbytYMF+lc4JH43dmOva
	 uff7RTo8LMR3EPl4IKGWnmdLzDITarjd/VNlGGxBP+I/3QceUlOTCS3uCE900TCvs1
	 jckOmQo5HIvHcc98SVDlxTzcQFRTr0hg2/NmwgOM=
Authentication-Results: mxback5j.mail.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.ru
Subject: Re: cwsdpmi borland compatible? possible! (Re: [PATCH] exec: fix
 inversions in leak detection logic)
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
References: <964e3268-2f75-ee73-ab5a-b01bf1aadb98 AT yandex DOT ru>
 <qjb14m$1kqj$1 AT gioia DOT aioe DOT org>
 <7209026e-1f1b-e590-00a3-4ed1a424cc0d AT yandex DOT ru>
 <qjfkbp$1o2c$1 AT gioia DOT aioe DOT org>
 <bd347f78-b176-6992-291c-2e542241efa1 AT yandex DOT ru>
 <d97686df-50ba-5210-519a-abd80f2d190f AT yandex DOT ru> <838sr87yty DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
 <bf9153a9-d741-d081-8dac-8c51b4789a19 AT yandex DOT ru> <83mue6lzds DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
From: "stsp (stsp2 AT yandex DOT ru) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Message-ID: <9d4aa654-593a-23ba-aa49-d5b347aebfc0@yandex.ru>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 21:07:36 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <83mue6lzds.fsf@gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id x9CI8Faw004597
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

12.10.2019 19:09, Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] 
пишет:
> Sorry for the long delay.  Charles replied yesterday that the second
> version posted here looked harmless to him.  Here's his exact words:
>
>> The second version looked harmless to me.  Based on a flag which
>> could be set it would change the cleanup behavior slightly. [...]
>> Of course the only way to know for sure is build with it

Sure:
https://code.launchpad.net/~stsp-0/+recipe/djgpp-daily
https://code.launchpad.net/~stsp-0/+archive/ubuntu/djgpp/+packages

I spent months in bringing these builds for you. :)
It includes my patches.


> So I guess we are okay with the second version of the change, thanks!

And the first patch that was dealing with empty
environment? I sent a V2 a few days ago, hope
you've seen also that one.