Carlo Arenas <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:07 AM Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Unfortunately, this is _still_ incorrect. > ... > Just to clarify, I think my patch accounts for that (haven't tested > that assumption, but will do now that I have a windows box, probably > even with mi-alloc) but yes, the only reason why there were references > to NEDMALLOC was to isolate the code and make sure the fix was > tackling the problem, it was not my intention to do so at the end, > specially once we agreed that xmalloc should be used anyway. > ... > apologize for the delays, and will be fine using your squash, mine, > the V6 RC (my preference) or dropping this series from pu if that > would help clear the ugliness of pu for windows So,... have we seen any conclusion on this? Can any of you guys give us a pointer to or copies of the candidate to be the final solution of this topic, please? Thanks.
