This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin XFree86 project.
RE: ThreadedX
- To: "Alan Hourihane" <alanh at fairlite dot demon dot co dot uk>,<cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com>
- Subject: RE: ThreadedX
- From: "Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 18:42:33 +1000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Hourihane [mailto:alanh@fairlite.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 6:02 PM
> To: cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: ThreadedX
>
>
> Mmm, in the thread Chuck asks that 'ld' shouldn't generate
> bad load addresses,
The load address's are fine. The impact on cygwin isn't.
> and Chris doesn't know the answer, apart from saying it's a
> WinXP tradeoff.
This is one of the big tradeoffs cygwin makes. The heap *must* be at the
same address consistently, as must cygwin1.dll itself. (It can be
different across reboots and machines though).
> As WinXP ships late October and we've got until early-mid
> November before 4.2.0
> ships. If it shows up problems then, yes, I'll put it back. But it
Problems will occur now. Randomly - per .exe. Consistently - if exe foo
fails it will fail consistently.
> does make the compilation a lot cleaner. Unless the consensus
> here is to
> put it back now. Suhaib - do you agree with the above ?
>
> I tend to agree that 'ld' shouldn't be generating bad code though.
The thing is, that it's good code. It just *will not* work reliably with
cygwin.
The problem occurs on *all* cygwin linked binaries. WinXP only affects
this insofar as Chris committed a fix for cygwin - which is in 1.3.3 -
to make it work with XP. The impact affects win95->win2k with cygwin.
It's up to you, but I know that The early KDE beta Ralf worked on had
this problem and thats why he couldn't run with Cygwin 1.3.2 until I
debugged it and let him know.
My 2c is, just do not set a base address. There is little need to do so.
If you are going to do so, write a script to prevent colliding with
cygwin.
Rob
> Alan.