X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E6442385843E
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1706985293;
	bh=U3ce0rVkoiofPmkfxu+mnY3fmpxu9qKVIcSRa8ZWJ9E=;
	h=Date:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:
	List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:
	From;
	b=cJaS+jaNuWoWrsI9/e/9WWkvXEkOeU3aIL6+bZ4bk3tUZNv4rNUs60BtLrFmI+HDN
	IHbdz5qNtXnS8Q7BGec3aHBCGzJFEzCn5+pLXRzwz/BGmMCooyPk2W/kSOiPMcg7gy
	lvB8LOeQfsDXiv6ug+ubyrMsHCEWTPJ8ZYj3OzRU=
X-Original-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 429993858403
ARC-Filter:	OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 429993858403
ARC-Seal:	i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1706985275; cv=none;
	b=cuaU6eyk9l6MKfZKLQTRY2GBxrtAjB0PXMLf18++9B1Ct6cMle9r/VGeJovd8cJrrC4v/FEKyftvBbfL0tpR3+eFAlRBooRYMf1rtlFfTcV8glPjLDczDBtF69NTEESK0BPrLy1PFZemk7ELccI16hK4ztD8hcPp7WBiuznbSTg=
ARC-Message-Signature:	i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key;
	t=1706985275; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=aGJJ8gEiBFy8bltoLMhl0VuC6f4C2PzzKxupOP4kKhw=;
	h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version;
	b=hTt0q+pTApTYNegRB21RLb87CeMOCW7j3by4pk0yBn+pLos4UgGO/WFOmEHRqEtwhxOWxmNCtVEqKqoX1WZu/SR1oeiReG1QoY1/YgPefGxtADN6t0LTwF1mElYCuKR0CyFXjDlWx7UtTgwfpYSCjo2XY34yC4/m6JTqHe6P9Ms=
ARC-Authentication-Results:	i=1; server2.sourceware.org
Date:	Sat, 3 Feb 2024 10:34:33 -0800 (PST)
X-X-Sender:	jeremyd AT resin DOT csoft DOT net
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Restore SEM_FAILCRITICALERRORS [was: Aren't Windows System Error
	popups meant to be disabled in Cygwin?]
In-Reply-To:	<ZbzmLRByzmDJxUcb@calimero.vinschen.de>
Message-ID:	<alpine.BSO.2.21.2402031027010.95909@resin.csoft.net>
References:	<CAJQQdJiOEduFeAthZ+q+LNXV33aJOhAXqq3sCaxdCqRpAjVmvA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAB8Xom-PnumWSLoDFgERXA4GX0zotQiKFvi_wL7Bvsv133WAmw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAJQQdJhzSNZ5dG254g5dv_AuWRxt+R-HLdiCPTkCNv=o+4PVeQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<ZbtsBD2IKYtH-duQ AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<CAJQQdJhS3QgJe_KsfGof_6XM6cwtNRkbPQPR32-JaKCu8_8KEA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<ZbzmLRByzmDJxUcb AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
User-Agent:	Alpine 2.21 (BSO 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Spam-Status:	No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version:	SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version:	2.1.30
List-Id:	General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive:	<https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
From:	Jeremy Drake via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To:	Jeremy Drake <cygwin AT jdrake DOT com>
Errors-To:	cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com
Sender:	"Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> On Feb  2 09:43, David Allsopp via Cygwin wrote:
> > However, this patch came from MSYS2, and subsequently they seem to
> > have found it problematic for the same reason as me
> > (https://github.com/msys2/msys2-runtime/pull/18#issuecomment-810897624)
> > and have just recently reintroduced the flag
> > (https://github.com/msys2/msys2-runtime/commit/7616b8a2e0ffcf068b47e1a66bbb1dbd7d9b5c50)
> > to control it.
> >
> > The reasoning in
> > https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/2006-August/150081.html seems as
> > valid now as it did in 2006.
> >
> > Is it possible to revisit having the flag, or even just reverting the behaviour?
> >
>
> I'm sympathetic, and personally I would prefer to revert the patch and
> stick to SEM_FAILCRITICALERRORS by default.
>
> The question is this: Why does, apparently, everybody expect Cygwin to
> do the "right thing", with different definitions of "right", when in
> fact the executable in question can easily call SetErrorMode by itself?

The different definitions of "right" is the reason the flag/option was
re-added in MSYS2.  I think the most "right" thing Cygwin could do (if it
were to only do one thing, rather than having an option) would be to
somehow have native processes inherit the error mode as though Cygwin were
not in the mix.  The issue with that, as you've seen, is that there are
any number of Cygwin processes in the hierarchy.

As far as the executable being able to call SetErrorMode itself, that
would be OK except for when the error is coming from the loader, before
anything from the executable is run (such as for missing DLL or missing
export from DLL).

I do like the idea of a native Windows program like "nohup" that sets the
error mode and then runs a subprocess.  Why doesn't Windows come with
something like that? ;)

-- 
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -