On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 11:04:35AM -0800, cppjavaperl wrote: >On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:57:03 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>I'll try to be clearer. We obviously know how to scan an executable >>for dependent DLLs since cygcheck does it already (and actually cygwin >>itself does this) but we are not going to be modifying ldd to deal with >>the case of non-executable binaries. > >I was not aware (until seeing it discussed elsewhere, shortly after my >last post) that cygcheck had this capability already. > >So, correct me if I'm wrong, it really doesn't have anything to do with >mirroring ldd's behavior on Linux -- It's just that you don't view it >as a problem worth spending time on.
I tested linux and found that it failed on a binary with no executable privileges. I didn't go to the extra effort of trying to make dependent .so's nonexecutable. But, I have confirmed that it is unaffected if a dependent .so is executable. So I can't claim that this is completely a linux compatibility feature. But, yes, you are correct that I don't think it's worthwhile to rewrite ldd to deal with this issue. -- 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