Question of the necessity of rebaseall
Thu May 14 04:33:00 GMT 2009
> Remember, the semantics of fork is that BOTH processes (the parent and
> child) must see the SAME memory, and that includes all shared libraries
> being mapped at the SAME location. But since Windows doesn't provide a
> native fork, the child must remap everything that the parent had, and hope
> that it lands at the same place. Rebasing improves the chance that the
> child will remap, because there are fewer dlls to be remapped in an
> arbitrary order.
Shudder. I wonder whether MS's own POSIX layer, the snappily named
"Services for Unix Applications", has to go through the same
contortions or whether there isn't some hidden fork support somewhere.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
More information about the Cygwin