Observation for ALL maintainers who provide dlls (was Re: question for perl maintainer)

[Charles Wilson]

Charles Wilson wrote:

 > I'll try to find the *original* discussion of this issue, which should
 > have occured BEFORE June 2001...


I think the previous discussion that Robert mentioned was actually only 
a few days earlier in June 2001, on the cygwin-developers list:

"dll base address"
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2001-06/msg00037.html

It doesn't add much to this current discussion, beyond what is contained 
in the threads I've already posted.  There is this, tho:

"Re: ld --auto-import for cygwin and libtool"
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-07/msg00039.html

 > ps. the relevant history in a nutshell:
 >
 > 1) Paul releases his patch (documented as just adding --auto-import)
 > 2) Robert (thats me :]) starts playing with it and finds fork() is
 >    broken
 > 3) Robert finds that the [DLL] relocation is the problem
 > 4) Robert finds that Pauls patch _ALSO_ enabled --auto-image-base,
 >    which is [normally] disabled by default.

Which goes back to the reason why disentangling the discussion of 
enabling auto-image-base by default, and the discussion of adding 
auto-import functionality to binutils, was separated.