X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <49ACC654.2030206@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:55:32 +0000
From: Dave Korn <dave DOT korn DOT cygwin AT googlemail DOT com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [1.7] rebaseall doesn't solve the problem
References: <49A85971 DOT 6070300 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <20090228104337 DOT GG19887 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <49A986B4 DOT 2080501 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <20090228195127 DOT GA26646 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20090228202850 DOT GB8503 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20090302120756 DOT GA31166 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <49ABF7B5 DOT 5010605 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <49AC56FE DOT 4080708 AT gmail DOT com> <20090303042825 DOT GA27645 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <49ACB96C DOT 10808 AT gmail DOT com> <20090303050733 DOT GA28708 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
In-Reply-To: <20090303050733.GA28708@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 05:00:28AM +0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:00:30PM +0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>>>> --pe-dll-characteristics=<name>|<integer>[(+|,:)<name>|<integer>[...]]
>>> I thought we'd established that these aren't just dll characteristics.
>> Well, it's the name of the field in the PE IMAGE_OPTIONAL_HEADER (coff
>> extension header), so it's canonical, regardless if it also applies to
>> executables.
> 
> Yes, I am aware of this.
> 
> Regardless, I don't think a publicly-exposed interface should be unclear
> like this.

  We can discuss this in depth on the binutils list when I submit the patch,
there's not much point in having a long OT thread here.  Let's see what the
other PE stakeholders feel.

    cheers,
      DaveK


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