On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:24:53AM +0200, 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 . > >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: > > #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.
"No need for the 'no'"? Huh? Huh? I ASKED for a suggestion. You provided one. You understand what the word "Otherwise" means right? cgf -- 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
