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
