Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:07:04 -0400
To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: Introducing slight binary incompatibility in newer executables?
Message-ID: <20000623230704.A754@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
References: <20000623224947 DOT A612 AT cygnus DOT com> <200006240300 DOT XAA13573 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <200006240300.XAA13573@envy.delorie.com>; from dj@delorie.com on Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 11:00:12PM -0400

On Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 11:00:12PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>I don't think this is any different than any other time we've added
>functionality to the dll.  Every time we export a new function, we
>create the opportunity for new programs to not work with old DLLs.
>Aside from bug fixing, this is how we define "progress".
>
>I don't see a problem with your proposed change.
>
>However, watch out for the *library* compatibility stuff.  Don't
>forget the ctype disaster.
>
>> The error will be something like "entry point cygwin_user_data not
>> found".
>
>More likely, something like "Error loading program" or "program not
>found".  Windows isn't very helpful with its error messages.  Or are
>you using LoadLibrary to access this new function?

It's data not a function.  I didn't make that clear.

I could still use LoadLibrary to access it but if I did that, I think
I'd lose the benefit of the change.

I'll check for the actual error message when I finish making the changes.

I'm basically moving all of the per_process data into the DLL where,
IMO, it has always belonged.

cgf