Question of the necessity of rebaseall

Larry Hall (Cygwin)
Thu May 14 05:51:00 GMT 2009

Andy Koppe wrote:
>> 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.

They don't use the Win32 subsystem so they aren't subject to its
restrictions but are instead locked in there own little subsystem....

Yep, we've talked about this before. There's no silver bullet to be
found here.

Larry Hall                    
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746


A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

More information about the Cygwin mailing list