X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BB241385800D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com; s=default; t=1706878574; bh=m7PUB1X3oXADe3JdqshhlWFSLRLB5lYTTobFuGERey0=; h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=oseJk9T689kg3xjKCe6m8LyfmfwNFuiicKZYChKvPmn3+JZ4Y9VJq6nUNwwCIh5Wf VzganqrI+zRXUepf/jA8TSyccABe8qmjkji6mx3b8qdCsTs7hCZT5H8PpCwi6Fvp/7 EHeLBdi6SjliiucD2roDajewjt/R1eSaV15V7bAw= X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9C3793858403 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:55:09 +0100 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Restore SEM_FAILCRITICALERRORS [was: Aren't Windows System Error popups meant to be disabled in Cygwin?] Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Cc: Corinna Vinschen Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com Sender: "Cygwin" On Feb 2 09:43, David Allsopp via Cygwin wrote: > On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 at 10:02, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin > 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