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

Christopher Faylor cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com
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
>>    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.

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 mailing list