Dave Korn wrote:
>> Apparently. There's no line containing __wrap__Znaj in config.log.
>
> Yeh, that proves I'm using the wrong sort of autoconf test.
No it doesn't!
>> While you're at it, there is another problem. When building gcc-4.3.4
>> as cross, the auto-host.h file contains
>>
>>
On Oct 4 08:27, Dave Korn wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>
> >> Apparently. There's no line containing __wrap__Znaj in config.log.
> >
> > Yeh, that proves I'm using the wrong sort of autoconf test.
>
> No it doesn't!
>
> >> While you're at it, there is another problem. When building gcc-4.
Hi Christian,
On Sep 1 20:32, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 30 21:38, Christian Franke wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> If you plan to run a Cygwin application with restricted rights from your
> >> administrative account, the IMHO right way would be to start the Cygwin
> >> application
On Oct 4 14:30, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> [...]
> Patch attached. For simplicity I just applied the patch to the w32api
> winbase.h header file which defines CreateRestrictedToken and
> IsTokenRestricted.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Corinna
>
>
> * autoload.cc (IsTokenRestricted): Define.
> *
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Since I have a running gcc-4.34 now, do you still want me to do that?
> Plaese keep in mind that I'm a lazy cow...
Efficient use of resources != laziness. No, I wouldn't suggest doing that,
what you ended up with by hacking the header files should (in theory, anyway)
Hi Corinna,
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
New patch attached. I made the test a bit more foolproof, hopefully.
And a restricted token does not require to load the user's registry hive,
nor should Cygwin try to enable the backup/restore permissions in the
new token. That spoils the idea of a restrict
On Oct 4 21:08, Christian Franke wrote:
> Hi Corinna,
>[...]
> Unfortunately this does not work for a typical use case: an admin process
> creates a restricted token with standard user rights. The function
> IsTokenRestricted() returns TRUE only if the token contains 'restricted
> SIDs'.
> (htt
On Oct 4 15:07, Dave Korn wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > Since I have a running gcc-4.34 now, do you still want me to do that?
> > Plaese keep in mind that I'm a lazy cow...
>
> Efficient use of resources != laziness. No, I wouldn't suggest doing that,
> what you ended up with by hack
On Oct 4 21:57, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Oct 4 21:08, Christian Franke wrote:
> > Hi Corinna,
> >[...]
> > Unfortunately this does not work for a typical use case: an admin process
> > creates a restricted token with standard user rights. The function
> > IsTokenRestricted() returns TRUE on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Dave Korn on 10/2/2009 3:11 PM:
> So, nobody did ask for a compiler version check(*), so here's the patch plus
> changelog, and I'd like to get separate OKs from both cgf and cv to say that
> you've each either updated your cross-build e
On 29/09/2009 20:11, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On 29/09/2009 19:35, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Anyway, to answer the question, AFAICS in glibc, #include
unconditionally[1]. ( is just one line:
#include [2])
So should I take the first route, patching newlib instead?
OTOH, this comment in the o
Eric Blake wrote:
> I just noticed that the gcc-4 available on 1.5 is no longer sufficient to
> do a self-hosted build of 1.7.
Maybe that should be considered cross- rather than self-hosting?
> Not a show-stopper, since I have
> successfully built self-hosted under 1.7 using the latest patch
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 03:07:51PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>Since I have a running gcc-4.34 now, do you still want me to do that?
>>Please keep in mind that I'm a lazy cow...
>
>Efficient use of resources != laziness. No, I wouldn't suggest doing
>that, what you ended up
13 matches
Mail list logo
