Side-by-side configuration is incorrect reported as permission denied

Earnie Boyd
Mon Aug 13 13:11:00 GMT 2012

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
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
>> 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.


Problem reports:
Unsubscribe info:

More information about the Cygwin mailing list