Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Tue, 2 Jul 2002 23:19:49 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: small_print vs system_printf
Message-ID:	<20020703031949.GA19817@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<057b01c2223e$4977cd20$6132bc3e AT BABEL>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<057b01c2223e$4977cd20$6132bc3e@BABEL>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 04:04:02AM +0100, Conrad Scott wrote:
>I've just noticed that in various places in the DLL, small_print is
>called directly.  Most of these look (to me) like they should be using
>system_printf; for example, in tty.cc (reformatted slightly):
>
>  if (wincap.has_security ()
>       && cygserver_running==CYGSERVER_OK
>       && (SetKernelObjectSecurity (hMainProc,
>            ACL_SECURITY_INFORMATION,
>            get_null_sd ()) == FALSE))
>    small_printf ("Can't set process security, %E");
>
>Would a patch to change (all of?) these uses to system_printf be
>accepted?

I only see a couple of these that I think should be changed.  I checked
in a fix to eliminate them.

Thanks for the heads up.

cgf

- Raw text -