peflags warning and tsaware flags

Larry Hall (Cygwin) reply-to-list-only-lh@cygwin.com
Fri Apr 27 03:09:00 GMT 2012


On 4/26/2012 4:28 PM, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen writes:
>> The warning might be a bit misleading.  What it really tries to tell you
>> is that the file in question is not an executable (*.exe).  The tsaware
>> flag has no meaning for DLLs, it's only evaluated in headers of
>> executables.
>
> That explains a lot more than that warning message, thank you.
>
>> The reason that many DLLs in the distro have the tsaware flag set is
>> because gcc doesn't differ between creating executables or DLLs, it will
>> add the flag unconditionally.
>>
>> So, nobody keeps you from adding the tsaware flag to all DLLs, but it
>> will neither help nor hurt.
>
> So DLL and other dynamic objects should not have it set (even though it
> doesn't hurt), while "true" executables should have it to run umimpeded
> on a terminal server?  Or are there Cygwin applications that should not
> have that flag set?

Does this help?
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/01cfys9z%28v=VS.80%29.aspx>


-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
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



More information about the Cygwin mailing list