On Wed Aug 20 20:08:15 2025 +0000, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:
From my understanding, `winebuild` influences the PE section of this binary, which IS meaningful. This is reinforced by the fact older `.dll` plugins stop crashing when it's disabled, and that other PE compilers offer similar options to control these flags. The `HIGHENTROPYVA` should have no effect if `DYNAMICBASE` is off, so I can see a "not meaningful" there (but only on mutual exclusion), but I wanted to keep the PR as simple as possible. I understand that Unix has [its own ASLR that's on by default](https://askubuntu.com/questions/318315), but to deny the meaningfulness of this flag for the PE section of the binary seems -- respectively -- incorrect. This regression was introduced with 518e394794160818ffe6826c874ff2f550c95bbb and can be reverted just the same. I'm only asking to give `winegcc` (or more specifically `winebuild`) 'users' the ability to control it.
The only influence is when both flags are set, we stop allocating in the low 2Gb by default, which probably breaks plugins that have pointer truncation bugs.
Unless both flags are set together, there shouldn't be any difference for the case of `.exe.so` binaries. There are more differences for the case of PE binaries, but that's controlled by the flags passed to `mingw`, not to `winebuild`.
So there's no reason to add two separate options to `winebuild`. Clearing either flag is the same as clearing both.
-
Alexandre Julliard (＠julliard)