Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <057b01c2223e$4977cd20$6132bc3e@BABEL>
From: "Conrad Scott" <Conrad DOT Scott AT dsl DOT pipex DOT com>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: small_print vs system_printf
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 04:04:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

I've just noticed that in various places in the DLL, small_print is
called directly.  Most of these look (to me) like they should be using
system_printf; for example, in tty.cc (reformatted slightly):

  if (wincap.has_security ()
       && cygserver_running==CYGSERVER_OK
       && (SetKernelObjectSecurity (hMainProc,
            ACL_SECURITY_INFORMATION,
            get_null_sd ()) == FALSE))
    small_printf ("Can't set process security, %E");

Would a patch to change (all of?) these uses to system_printf be
accepted?

// Conrad