delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Recipient: | archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com |
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: | No, hits=1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,TO_NO_BRKTS_PCNT |
X-Spam-Check-By: | sourceware.org |
Message-id: | <4F9A0DE4.7040008@cygwin.com> |
Date: | Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:09:24 -0400 |
From: | "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com> |
Reply-to: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
User-Agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 |
MIME-version: | 1.0 |
To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Subject: | Re: peflags warning and tsaware flags |
References: | <loom DOT 20120426T170854-952 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20120426195724 DOT GC28119 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <87d36uz195 DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid> |
In-reply-to: | <87d36uz195.fsf@Rainer.invalid> |
Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
List-Id: | <cygwin.cygwin.com> |
List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Archive: | <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/> |
List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs> |
Sender: | cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com |
Mail-Followup-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
On 4/26/2012 4:28 PM, Achim Gratz wrote: > Corinna Vinschen writes: >> The warning might be a bit misleading. What it really tries to tell you >> is that the file in question is not an executable (*.exe). The tsaware >> flag has no meaning for DLLs, it's only evaluated in headers of >> executables. > > That explains a lot more than that warning message, thank you. > >> The reason that many DLLs in the distro have the tsaware flag set is >> because gcc doesn't differ between creating executables or DLLs, it will >> add the flag unconditionally. >> >> So, nobody keeps you from adding the tsaware flag to all DLLs, but it >> will neither help nor hurt. > > So DLL and other dynamic objects should not have it set (even though it > doesn't hurt), while "true" executables should have it to run umimpeded > on a terminal server? Or are there Cygwin applications that should not > have that flag set? Does this help? <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/01cfys9z%28v=VS.80%29.aspx> -- Larry _____________________________________________________________________ A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |