Observation for ALL maintainers who provide dlls (was Re: question for perl maintainer)
Sun Jul 10 01:24:00 GMT 2005
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 07:53:48PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>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"
>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"
>> 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
>> 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.
That sounds like auto-image-base was locating some dlls into cygwin's
address space. Danny's patch should fix that, I think.
Either that or we should just decide where all of the dlls should live.
More information about the Cygwin-apps