On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Herbert Stocker wrote: > Hi, > > Imho, EACCESS is indeed a bit misleading because it suggests permission > problems. Better would be to have an EFAIL as a generic error. Actually i > was missing an EFAIL several times when my programs needed to return > an error code that did not match well with what i found in errno.h .
You may think it is misleading but http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009604499/functions/exec.html states that EACCESS is the correct value. > > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:07:00AM +0200, Pawel Jasinski wrote: > >> If you can find a nice Linux errno which maps from >> ERROR_SXS_CANT_GEN_ACTCTX >> to something other than EACCES I'd be happy to change Cygwin. > > > I had a quick poke into sys/errno.h and there i found 5 error codes > beginning with ELIB. One of those should suffice. My fafourite is this: > Not valid for exec() to return. > #define ELIBBAD 84. /* Accessing a corrupted shared lib */ > > Because side-by-side problems may mean that the supporting DLL is > acutally there and can be read (also for execute), but the accompanying > XML file describes it incorrectly (e.g. wrong version number), the DLL > is not signed correctly, is not placed in the subdirectory whose name > is mandated by Windows, etc. > >> Otherwise, no, I'm not going to worry about this issue. > > > There is no need for the 'no', i'd suggest ELIBBAD. Again, not an error message that exec() should return. -- Earnie -- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd -- 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
