X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A83DC3858D33
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1711187880;
	bh=5on6WEbGrIwVS0Jxw5VaopznD35wmPopTpHB+7yldzE=;
	h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:
	List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:
	From;
	b=KAPY4Ms966cGe3jeiKDDWYeSLxyOC4PG8BCDBnZjdry3yJAZI1LFKvTK/GPpqJxPH
	Tk9ziqI7+X0SjewEd8K8iaQGlCXlUYgH+TDmtTupLIUBu6nMEcoSsCwn56cin2b3fm
	dl7ittpJJ8U5RtVU0iqioPjh4FWBeUZcf2tj5lA0=
X-Original-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 445653858D28
ARC-Filter:	OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 445653858D28
ARC-Seal:	i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1711187862; cv=none;
	b=GhGyPZxgcBd+W43kCtldjqMAYhRhkWpbIf2EzYygW9qkzsvXo2vKcg7trCB09n9fiVjD0vi62Zd27Ayed/A1/mLPiUA4PEDRIZ6gcvULuovgZiNC4nLFy/3eSgY26ySJ1lcLurF+M5jn//En9S1n5h8+kag3PllMgG9SM0xIqC8=
ARC-Message-Signature:	i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key;
	t=1711187862; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=gmU8WuapLq4dI/+N6gidQh9r5UWaGkT0ZFEMK/8iqsU=;
	h=Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version;
	b=llWmW5o07NYWIAlKoawzuIob6dwBJzu7NgJ2XaOMbAV+M4RmtE9+sUQDn+ManMsy2ldMQfmT4hoApwpObHoNjx0GmVJG9c+zWsoEo0ICIg9WHwhnWdkMQEKtRR1iD5WSDTmm390yW/BwjzuXUdkKBIGCGkUX9+Q2Gz/qLx2bj3U=
ARC-Authentication-Results:	i=1; server2.sourceware.org
Subject:	Re: GetVersionEx() depreciated, what should be used instead for
	Windows 7/8/10?
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<CALXu0UdrjFfhrBmBPNYepvMJ3hL7CPf1n6HEowxZgOxwdoy1TA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<b47b7092-716a-c626-a14d-e5847bc86926 AT t-online DOT de>
	<CANV9t=S2BJ2d-_zNm3ZgVeerQ+ZEONQ4fjN1MXc6JVp+Gvrxsg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CALwydEs5ZTYqSxfZOp_hWobWQxFEeLGio8WoUCwTAM2eaph_sA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CANV9t=QHLHyv_jvvrCREpyrEX=JqmTdQvnmfUXbSKuvMrhHn9A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<Zfm7ZqZBdMBaoEOM AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<0d8daf74-2861-8b08-b47c-28cf5d3b991f AT t-online DOT de>
	<ZfszwBeYDxxApO9v AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<538aa134-b079-12ec-76fe-5a60fc77c3ee AT t-online DOT de>
	<ZfxPIbU5K_VgX5hZ AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
Message-ID:	<38b3f5df-ea63-8eb4-f0f9-4057c0eeae90@t-online.de>
Date:	Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:57:31 +0100
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
	SeaMonkey/2.53.16
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<ZfxPIbU5K_VgX5hZ@calimero.vinschen.de>
X-TOI-EXPURGATEID:	150726::1711187852-86FFA968-D8EF35E8/0/0 CLEAN NORMAL
X-TOI-MSGID:	a942e5c1-94d8-4d80-aa9f-fecbbaa512a0
X-Spam-Status:	No, score=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FROM,
	KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,
	TXREP 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:	Christian Franke via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To:	Christian Franke <Christian DOT Franke AT t-online DOT de>
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 Mar 21 16:15, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
> On Mar 21 09:58, Christian Franke via Cygwin wrote:
>>>> ..
> I just gave it a try on W11. The results are even more funny than I
> anticipated:
>
> ...
>
> So, yeah, with your observations especially on older W10 versions and
> with 8.1 doing the same thing, I guess we can safely drop the extra call
> to RtlGetNtVersionNumbers now.

Or:
Keep RtlGetVersionNumbers, compare result with RtlGetVersion and emit 
debug output if both differ. This would allow to diagnose a possible 
future reappearance of the issue.


>    After such a long time, I don't know
> on which version of Windows we observed the problem.

Some developer preview?

Meantime I also tested with Win10 1607, 1703, 1709, 1803 VM snapshots 
with same result.

-- 
Regards,
Christian


-- 
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 -