[stunnel-users] Critical error on stunnel 434 for WinCE/Windows Mobile: no service at all, because of failure in thread creation
delaage.pierre at free.fr
Sun Sep 26 20:34:07 CEST 2010
Your fix and mine are cumulative :
it is allowed to specify "0" for stacksize in _beginthread, in which
case the spec says that the actual stacksize
will default to that of the calling thread.
Presently such a 0 will lead CreateThread and _begithread to fail.
My patch will lead to have as "default" the /STACK option value of the
linker, ie 1MB with wce compiler if /STACK unspecified.
It would be uselessly luxuous to modify _beginthread to "really" get the
calling thread stack size as default.
Then, gui.c, or anyother caller, will be "free" to call _beginthread
with 0 as stacksize or not.
This is the subject of your patch.
Apart from that my soon global patch will only fix "compilation issues",
not execution issues.
In general, after the 4.27 refresh and the unicode bug last year I will
stay focused on unicode/ascii support and
compilation issues on WCE, and I will deal with "operational" code only
when encountering a bug.
My present aim being to offer a port of stunnel for WCE, without
touching the core cryptographic code,
something I prefer to let to ssl specialists
See you soon with my patch,
Le 26/09/2010 19:25, Michal Trojnara a écrit :
> Pierre DELAAGE wrote:
>> Maybe you remember me, I am the man that refreshed stunnel for winCE
>> up to 4.27 version.
>> Thank you for having included my code to your mainstream at that time.
> Thank you. I appreciate your public domain patch sent 10 Jan 2009.
>> the bug is in sthread.c:
>> the wince _beginthread port has been modified
> You're right. I obviously made a mistake here. Thank you.
> In gui.c:
> _beginthread(ThreadFunc, 0, NULL);
> should be:
> _beginthread(ThreadFunc, DEFAULT_STACK_SIZE, NULL);
>> I repeat and insist : please DO NOT DO anything to the code, as I
>> will send soon a refresh with various other updates (because apart
>> from that critical bug,
>> the code needs other refresh to compile properly),
> I prefer individual patches for separate issues rather than a single,
> large patch.
> I also tend to rewrite code anyway rather than simply apply patches.
> It might be better if you just describe problems instead of sending
> the code.
>> and as I am also working on a refresh of openssl up to 1.0.0a (those
>> gentlemen at openssl never included any wce patch to their mainstream,
>> which is really a pity, but another story).
> It would be great to have a patch to build OpenSSL with arm-cegcc. 8-)
> Best regards,
> stunnel-users mailing list
> stunnel-users at mirt.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the stunnel-users