This is andrewrk's patch from ziglang#6724 (rebased)
CMake: Fix dependency problem
I don't know whether the error was expected cmake behavior or a bug.
This change seems to fix the issue. See ziglang#6724 for details.
We currently have ciphers optimized for performance, for
compatibility, for size and for specific CPUs.
However we lack a class of ciphers that is becoming increasingly
important, as Zig is being used for embedded systems, but also as
hardware-level side channels keep being found on (Intel) CPUs.
Here is ISAPv2, a construction specifically designed for resilience
against leakage and fault attacks.
ISAPv2 is obviously not optimized for performance, but can be an
option for highly sensitive data, when the runtime environment cannot
be trusted.
I have an alternative set of windows bindings I'm working on: https://github.com/marler8997/zig-os-windows. So I'm declaring my wWinMain function with my own HINSTANCE type rather than the one from std.os.windows. This change allows start to call wWinMain using any pointer type.
* Move leb128 out of debug and remove trivial *mem functions as discussed in #5588
* Turns out one of the *Mem functions was used by MachO. Replaced with trivial use of FixedBufferStream.
Make it behave like the read() wrapper for unix systems.
Reading the whole buffer breaks some use-cases like buffered readers
over sockets.
Closes#7121
The mismatch between the argument slot type in the frame structure and
the one used in the store operation made the generated code write
garbage over the nearby fields.
Fixes#7104
This intentionally diverges from the unix dirname command, as well as
Python and Node.js standard libraries, which all have this edge case
return the input path, unmodified. This is a footgun, and nobody should
have ever done it this way.
Even the man page contradicts the behavior. It says:
"strip last component from file name". Now consider, if you
remove the last item from an array of length 1, then you
have now an array of length 0. After you strip the last component, there
should be no components remaining. Clearly, returning the input parameter
unmodified in this case does not match the documented behavior. This is
my justification for taking a stand on this API design.
closes#6746closes#6727closes#6584closes#6592closes#6602
