On Sep 11 13:33, Jon Turney wrote: > On 10/09/2020 15:04, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Sep 10 13:27, Jon Turney wrote: > > > If the process exited with e.g. STATUS_DLL_NOT_FOUND, also process the > > > file to look for not found DLLs. > > > > > > (We currently only do this when a STATUS_DLL_NOT_FOUND exception occurs, > > > which I haven't managed to observe) > > > > > > This still isn't 100% correct, as it only examines the specified file > > > for missing DLLs, not recursively on the DLLs it depends upon. > > > > Better than nothing? > > Well, except when people are misled when investigating problems because they > assume the output is accurate. (e.g. [1]) > > [1] https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/2020-September/246164.html > > I guess what's maybe needed is some indication that an error occurred and > the output may be incomplete if the inferior process exited with a non-zero > status. But not sure how we can do that while keeping the output compatible > with linux ldd.
I assume there *may* occur an error in ldd as well, so it might be intersting to check the Linux ldd sources to see how it generates error output. Corinna
