X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	q=dns; s=default; b=gXt5YRgK6wwJAVyve0hxDwPIlu02Hkt8I1WYPQdjtPv
	9lPHu3cYXcKegkRgtE34K9gCKoc8QxS+Lc24XUZ8Ydq8osMHTa/78vG5NAzfk+wR
	JUF+L4iGdm/ZVGVkSTtLenqkoJ7NUVcZ+yGOPF8tGBNo7NbLAwdURn/mkuAMKvcg
	=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	s=default; bh=amPE3/H6VMrTyti7kUlFYYc3yyQ=; b=GdTDEsRi5QtB7lYKi
	9U3dQKXVd/htsiNIQgMAxi4Hr8NZDvW0f00soOfskPuDMNqbjQvc9+0seF+n3J5h
	A1AHl3IPpY/cJ0Q8B3xxI1AwA+sbesB7kNwbYAnZwDNnZNAkOlqh7Ddj19f2D9Mu
	4morn0J4gf61NSLJos8GfbOumo=
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
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	mail.lysator.liu.se
Message-ID:	<52F8B50E.7040307@lysator.liu.se>
Date:	Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:16:30 +0100
From:	Peter Rosin <peda AT lysator DOT liu DOT se>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: get rid of getpwent? (Was: cygwin-1.7.28 getpwent header declaration changes ?)
References:	<52F339CA DOT 5070305 AT gmail DOT com> <20140206090117 DOT GD2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F361C5 DOT 3000807 AT gmail DOT com> <20140206141321 DOT GI2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F40208 DOT 5030901 AT etr-usa DOT com> <20140207094917 DOT GN2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F4E540 DOT 2010606 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <52F51D19 DOT 6080807 AT etr-usa DOT com> <31347914-BB4F-4039-984B-731B6C72F903 AT etr-usa DOT com> <52F7AEC5 DOT 5090205 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <8B7B5FE0-7413-4358-BA8A-E0B6E0B17653 AT etr-usa DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<8B7B5FE0-7413-4358-BA8A-E0B6E0B17653@etr-usa.com>

On 2014-02-10 10:02, Warren Young wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2014, at 9:37 AM, David Stacey <drstacey AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/02/2014 15:45, Warren Young wrote:
>>> Results:
>>>
>>> /bin/cppcheck.exe
>>
>> As far as I can tell, cppcheck doesn't actually call getpwent() at all; this is a false positive turned up by strings(1).
> 
> Yeah, there *has* to be a better way than strings(1) to extract an EXE's list of DLL imports.  The linker does it somehow...

objdump -x /bin/foo.exe

Cheers,
Peter


--
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

- Raw text -