From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15196 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2012 03:09:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 15179 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Apr 2012 03:09:54 -0000 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 Received: from vms173001pub.verizon.net (HELO vms173001pub.verizon.net) (206.46.173.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:09:41 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.231] ([unknown] [108.20.163.244]) by vms173001.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0M34003XOBFNK4B0@vms173001.mailsrvcs.net> for cygwin@cygwin.com; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:09:28 -0500 (CDT) Message-id: <4F9A0DE4.7040008@cygwin.com> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:09:00 -0000 From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" Reply-to: cygwin@cygwin.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@cygwin.com Subject: Re: peflags warning and tsaware flags References: <20120426195724.GC28119@calimero.vinschen.de> <87d36uz195.fsf@Rainer.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@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00619.txt.bz2 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? -- 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