On 2:31:43 pm 2005-07-30 "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Previously we have discussed this: > > "Re: make signal text descriptions" > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/make-w32/2003-10/msg00023.html > > There are two cases where I think we should display a more accurate > error code Error description: > > "Signal 127" (quoted paths) (Also "Error 127", if this is the same) > > and "Error 255" (binary did not exist) > > It is clearly a failed exec > (http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-06/msg00674.html), and as Earnie > pointed out this is not a signal, but a return code. For these > reasons I think we should display an appropriate message, at least on > WINDOWS32 builds > > I could not replicate the "Signal 127" message, I could replicate > "Error 127", maybe the different win32 build options effect this in a > way that it is incorrectly named as a "Signal" 127 error. > > I attatch a test case which replicates "Error 127", what I wonder is > why CreateProcess() is used to swpawn in the first case, and /bin/sh > is used in the 2nd case? > > makefile_Error_127.test > > Does anyone know where 127 and 255 values are documented as indicating > something in partciular? >
$ grep 127 /include/winerror.h #define ERROR_PROC_NOT_FOUND 127L $ grep 255 /include/winerror.h #define ERROR_EA_LIST_INCONSISTENT 255L HTH, Earnie _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
