www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - LDC2 compiling executable requiring elevated privileges?

reply spikespaz <spikespaz outlook.com> writes:
I'm compiling an executable that does not need administrator 
privileges. For some reason though, LDC thinks it does and marks 
it as elevated.

=============================
ldc2 source\setup.d -i -I source -J build\vars -of 
build\bin\setup.exe -m32 -g
=============================

No clue why, but what can I do about that?

I'm thinking maybe it's because I'm importing 
"std.windows.registry". But even then, I'm only writing to 
"HKEY_CURRENT_USER", so no elevation should be required.

This is the source.
https://github.com/spikespaz/search-deflector/blob/master/source/setup.d
Oct 14 2018
parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 14 October 2018 at 12:16:28 UTC, spikespaz wrote:

 I'm compiling an executable that does not need administrator 
 privileges. For some reason though, LDC thinks it does and 
 marks it as elevated.


This has nothing to do with ldc. It is just any 32 bit program 
called setup.exe or install.exe is assumed to be an installer by 
Windows, and thus triggers UAC unless you specifically tell it 
not to.

More info (including how to override this default behavior):

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20096706/how-does-windows-decide-whether-to-display-the-uac-prompt


Easiest way, of course, is to just not call it setup.exe
Oct 14 2018
parent reply Laurent =?UTF-8?B?VHLDqWd1aWVy?= <laurent.treguier.sink gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 14 October 2018 at 13:20:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Sunday, 14 October 2018 at 12:16:28 UTC, spikespaz wrote:

 I'm compiling an executable that does not need administrator 
 privileges. For some reason though, LDC thinks it does and 
 marks it as elevated.


 This has nothing to do with ldc. It is just any 32 bit program 
 called setup.exe or install.exe is assumed to be an installer 
 by Windows, and thus triggers UAC unless you specifically tell 
 it not to.

 More info (including how to override this default behavior):

 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20096706/how-does-windows-decide-whether-to-display-the-uac-prompt


 Easiest way, of course, is to just not call it setup.exe


This automation drove me crazy. I changed the name from "install" 
to "bootstrap" to solve it when I faced this problem.
Why should an OS decide whether an executable should be run with 
admin privileges ? If it has to, then it's up to the developer to 
explicitly ask for it...
Oct 14 2018
parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 14 October 2018 at 15:46:57 UTC, Laurent Tréguier 
wrote:

 Why should an OS decide whether an executable should be run 
 with admin privileges ? If it has to, then it's up to the 
 developer to explicitly ask for it...


Windows supports programs written as much as 30 years ago. The 
developer might not even be around anymore, yet they try to keep 
the program working. Sometimes that means some weird hacks in the 
OS.

It is really good for the end user.
Oct 14 2018
parent reply Laurent =?UTF-8?B?VHLDqWd1aWVy?= <laurent.treguier.sink gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 14 October 2018 at 17:49:11 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Sunday, 14 October 2018 at 15:46:57 UTC, Laurent Tréguier 
 wrote:

 Why should an OS decide whether an executable should be run 
 with admin privileges ? If it has to, then it's up to the 
 developer to explicitly ask for it...


 Windows supports programs written as much as 30 years ago. The 
 developer might not even be around anymore, yet they try to 
 keep the program working. Sometimes that means some weird hacks 
 in the OS.

 It is really good for the end user.


If it's about old programs, then Windows should apply their hacks 
only for old executables. Since it can somehow detect which 
compatibility mode to apply in a program's properties, surely it 
could decide when to and when not to try weird hacks...

Anyway, I was mostly just ranting about Windows, and I'll always 
blindly do that even if anyone tries to reason with me :)
Oct 15 2018
parent Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 07:23:07 UTC, Laurent Tréguier 
wrote:

 If it's about old programs, then Windows should apply their 
 hacks only for old executables.


It kinda does - this only applies to 32 bit exes without a 
manifest resource. If you compile with -m64, it will go away, or 
if you add a manifest file (which is recommended for all new 
programs, just it isn't as trivial with D than it is with like 

too).

Just aside from stuff like that, there is no way to tell if it is 
a new or and old program.
Oct 15 2018