X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,TO_NO_BRKTS_PCNT
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-id: <4F9A0DE4.7040008@cygwin.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:09:24 -0400
From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-to: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: peflags warning and tsaware flags
References: <loom DOT 20120426T170854-952 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20120426195724 DOT GC28119 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <87d36uz195 DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid>
In-reply-to: <87d36uz195.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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

On 4/26/2012 4:28 PM, Achim Gratz wrote:
> 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?

Does this help?
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/01cfys9z%28v=VS.80%29.aspx>


-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
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