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

[Jason Tishler]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:04:17PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 01:42:34PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >From: "Christopher Faylor"
> >>Do we need to coordinate this among all package maintainers, maybe?
> >>Maybe we could publish a list of all of the dlls in the system along
> >>with standard base addresses for each and ask that maintainers make
> >>sure that their DLL complies with the base address.
> >>
> >>The more I think about this, the more I believe that we shouldn't have
> >>to continually tell users to run rebaseall.  Setting the base address
> >>is something that should be done once, by the maintainer, not every
> >>time a person installs a package.
> >
> >Amen, but before we setup a centralized database can we evaluate if
> >--enable-auto-image-base suffices? For example, does it currently lead
> >to any collision?
> 
> Yep.  That's a good first step.

Unfortunately, I have found that the DLLs need a gap between them to
guarantee that fork() won't fail.  Additionally, I have run out of
address space even when starting at 0x70000000 on a system with a lot a
DLLs.  So, I'm not sure the standard base address scheme will work.  As
Cygwin continues to grow (and more DLLs added), people may actually have
to chose a subset of DLLs to rebase... :,(

Jason

-- 
PGP/GPG Key: http://www.tishler.net/jason/pubkey.asc or key servers
Fingerprint: 7A73 1405 7F2B E669 C19D  8784 1AFD E4CC ECF4 8EF6