X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Achim Gratz Subject: Re: peflags warning and tsaware flags Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:28:22 +0200 Lines: 28 Message-ID: <87d36uz195.fsf@Rainer.invalid> References: <20120426195724.GC28119@calimero.vinschen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com 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? Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ DIY Stuff: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/DIY.html -- 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