DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 6EA563857B98
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <ZbzmLRByzmDJxUcb@calimero.vinschen.de>
In-Reply-To: <ZbzmLRByzmDJxUcb@calimero.vinschen.de>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:28:16 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJQQdJhwxBTP61zz_OtE5+OnokanLF+zMMEFeCLQRcOy6BsJDA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Restore SEM_FAILCRITICALERRORS [was: Aren't Windows System Error
 popups meant to be disabled in Cygwin?]
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Cc: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>
From: David Allsopp via Cygwin <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Reply-To: David Allsopp <david@tarides.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: "Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com>

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 12:55, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
> 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?

The executable can't, though (at least, I'm not aware that it can)?
The DLL not found case is being triggered by the loader, before the
entrypoint code is running?

I did have a look to see if there are manifest flags or some such
which can be set to indicate this, but it does seem to be the
responsibility of the caller, coupled with a "best practice"
recommendation on MSDN to call SetErrorMode (as Cygwin is of course
doing).

The whole system with it feels like unfortunate Windows legacy, but I
guess the behaviour vastly predates Event Viewer, etc., and slightly
better (and non-blocking) ways of reporting loader errors. Perils of a
nearly 40 year old API, if not OS <shrugs>

Thanks,


David

-- 
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