Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:55:09 +0100
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Restore SEM_FAILCRITICALERRORS [was: Aren't Windows System Error
 popups meant to be disabled in Cygwin?]
Message-ID: <ZbzmLRByzmDJxUcb@calimero.vinschen.de>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <CAJQQdJiOEduFeAthZ+q+LNXV33aJOhAXqq3sCaxdCqRpAjVmvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB8Xom-PnumWSLoDFgERXA4GX0zotQiKFvi_wL7Bvsv133WAmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJQQdJhzSNZ5dG254g5dv_AuWRxt+R-HLdiCPTkCNv=o+4PVeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZbtsBD2IKYtH-duQ@calimero.vinschen.de>
 <CAJQQdJhS3QgJe_KsfGof_6XM6cwtNRkbPQPR32-JaKCu8_8KEA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJQQdJhS3QgJe_KsfGof_6XM6cwtNRkbPQPR32-JaKCu8_8KEA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: list
From: Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Cc: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com
Sender: "Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com>

On Feb  2 09:43, David Allsopp via Cygwin wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 at 10:02, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin
> <cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
> >
> > The behaviour changed in 2020
> >
> > https://cygwin.com/git/?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=commitdiff;h=21ec498d7f912
> >
> > not without a discussion
> >
> > https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-patches/2020q4/010870.html
> 
> Aha, thank you! (congrats on the 3.5 release, in passing, btw).
> Definitely not a regression, then (subject edited).
> 
> 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?
> 
> FWIW, it's been "hurting" us over in OCaml-land since zstd support was
> added roughly a year ago - configure can tell us that mingw-w64's zstd
> is available, but woe betide us if we run the test program to see if
> it actually works, but the user forgot to add the sys-root into PATH,
> because at that point the CI system is down...

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?


Corinna

-- 
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