On Feb 2 09:43, David Allsopp via Cygwin wrote: > On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 at 10:02, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin > <cygwin@cygwin.com> 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
