Special Compilation Request to Xojo

How would any of you submit a special request to Xojo Corp about how Xojo compiles? We don’t have much control how Xojo compiles an app (no linker settings, etc.) but I have a request.

I have started using PACE ilok to protect my apps, and it works pretty good. Basically (there’s much more to it) it injects in activation machine code to a compiled binary, so when you start the binary, it checks for authentication, if it doesn’t exist, it displays some dialogs so you can activate. Pretty neat.

They (Pace) have little if any experience with Xojo apps, but it does work great. BUT there’s one issue that is appearing. To inject the code (on Mac) it needs a a certain amount of pad space in the MachO headers, at most 300-400 bytes. Usually that exists, but sometimes not.

The solution Pace gives us a linker command that ensures there’s enough padheader space. Of course, this doesn’t exist in Xojo.

So, I’d like to ask Xojo if they can guarantee (I guess in a future version) enough pad space in the MachO headers where this would not be a problem anymore. I can make the request, or maybe better, I could hook Pace and Xojo up and they could talk about it.

Question is, where should I start?

Dear Geoff,

Got his address? =) I have Christmas cards.

the right mechanism is to submit a feedback request

Uh Huh :wink:

See http://feedback.xojo.com/case/59069 for an option to get a linker command line parameter to pass to linker.

Fine & dandy for some, Christian, but for me that URL is a 404. Could you please explain ?

Install the Feedback application first…

Thankyou.

Are you using Optimization Level = Default (minimal)? Because optimizations in the past removed pads to favor size, specially >= -O3

The requested option intended is to use MacOS ld option “-headerpad 0xnnnn”
A 0x180 value is 384 bytes (the 300-400 range)

Such option is not cross-platform.

Well, Xojo said they "fixed’ this back in Feb (Pre-COVID), and it’s worked for awhile - whatever that means. However, in the past 2 months it’s cropped up again. I am using 3.2. I am always using DEFAULT, and it “seems” that Aggressive make sit go away, but I really want a permanent solution to this. I put in another FEEDBACK request 60928 but it’s said Needs Review for months now.

It’s really a pain because I’ll have a client that needs a build really fast and I can’t compile it because there is 0% chance I’ll ever send out a unprotected binary.

I really like the idea of a linker options thing. Does it work, and if so, how?

If we fixed it in February I suspect it’s in the next major release. We wouldn’t have put something like that in a point release.