LGTM.

In D139184#4021208, @tonic wrote:

In D139184#4020932, @aganea wrote:

Looks good generally.

@tonic Does your veto still hold? Can we move ahead with this patch?

I have already provided feedback on the legal aspect and assuming those conditions are met (sounds like they are), then this patch is ok to go in.

add commit

add test

In D140555#4019479, @aganea wrote:

LGTM.

Do you have commit access? If yes, please wait a few days before commiting, in case other reviewers have anything to add. If you don’t have commit access, I could commit it for you, please provide the git author information.

Oh, previously I leave blank because I would add other checksum test sets.

Oh, I understand. Thank you very much. And I think I should wait reviewers accept D140555 so that I can use llvm-readobj to add tests.

Thank you very much.

But I have some questions. Why using "ulittle32_t" rather than "ulittle16_t".

fix

Thanks. This method is really concise and clear. If don't consider the possibility of future use, such as adding other verifications, it is advisable to remove this part of complex code.

Thanks, I think it's a good idea.

I deem that it is impossible to leak source code because the "checksum" only occupies only a DWORD. If reviewers think there is no problem, please accept the patch so that I can submit this commit.

fix

Oh, right, but I see there is only an error which in file-headers.test can be raised.

In D139184#3983197, @tonic wrote:

Hello! Please hold off on approving this patch as its pending legal review. Thanks!

To be honest, I didn't know what I should do.

Oh well, I've tested a dozen samples using petool and they are all correct.

Adjust clang-format

reCI

I have reviewed the source code of imagehlp.CheckSumMappedFile, which was leaked in nt5src, it is indeed rounding up.

Ok, I updated this patch.

Yes, these options are not documented, so I think they can be ignored. If they are important options for windows driver, why MSVC didn't document them. And, the windows driver run perfectly even if I ignore these two options.

I understand you mean. I think I can try to solve this problem, if I have enough time.

I see, thank you very much.

This flag do nothing. It is defined only for link.exe compatibility.

I understand you mean, but I can't get function name at macro expedition stage.