----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason Tishler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:06 AM Subject: Re: Observation for ALL maintainers who provide dlls (was Re: question for perl maintainer)
> 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... :,( How much of a gap? So you are saying that neither --enable-auto-image-base nor the centralized database will work... By the way, is it reliable to use objdump -x to find the base (ImageBase) ? For cygssl-0.9.8.dll it is 10000000, but I thought the base was 0x63000000 Pierre
