X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=ER crNlyMdHBtJeOiafNTu5AMeuJTKhkXy5h97+CD5RhyLS0Qw0yWhz9iPYgAGN9/q3 4+2sKMcmobqKUPaNjPZIdePhsqoYPQAE7hT/B/4Xl26A52iRPCx2A/5J2a57dwh9 +dDQWZDFYqZewHDcZtfMDdf32UisGmLVN1AzSFHKE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s=default; bh=ubQbjyLm vcX+B0XlPg3I9XOg93M=; b=vWWKYIVv1HRMik0GukgJC4w7LpVmXgwjf56m36OT HD9NBeOQfR7mbgnywhL8/b3uPc8OfPY4wliiyxFGbntd4KyPLVoJZwW3AbhZJUwB 2rX+cwWOiUyuQMWR6rCQuZA5oA5p6M0cC08+7xZXiszyoMNKpySDbusWUkUzsaB1 G5Y= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.45.97 with SMTP id l1mr9516064igm.99.1365502069215; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 03:07:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130409091644.GJ10126@calimero.vinschen.de> References: <5163A190 DOT 2070906 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <20130409091644 DOT GJ10126 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:07:49 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Missing values in w32api enum From: Kai Tietz To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 2013/4/9 Corinna Vinschen schrieb: > On Apr 9 01:05, Charles Wilson wrote: >> The following are missing from the definition of enum >> WELL_KNOWN_SID_TYPE in winnt.h: >> [...] >> Should I send this as a patch to mingw64.sf (are they the >> maintainers of our w32api now?) > > Yes, and yes. > > > Thanks, > Corinna I applied the missing enumerator values to mingw-w64's trunk at rev 5735. Thanks for pointing me to this missing stuff. Regards, Kai -- 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