On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 05:35:10PM +0000, Andrew West wrote: >On 01/02/2010 16:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> Could you clarify? Are you saying that your test case still failed? >> > >With the change you provided my test still failed, but changing >m.AllocationBase to m.BaseAddress it worked. >Unfortunately it only worked for that test cash, on trying it with a >full program of mine it crashed using both >AllocationBase and BaseAddress to work out the start position of the dll. > >On closer examination it looks like dll_beg <-> dll_end doesn't cover >all the possible locations that atexits are registered from. >I think RegionSize isn't big enough at least when I compare them to gdbs >"info sharedlibrary", for example: > >remove_dll_atexit; >m.AllocationBase = 0x706c0000 >m.AllocationBase + m.RegionSize = 0x706c1000 > >GDB; >from = 0x706c1000 >to = 0x706c717c > >But the atexit function is registered at 0x706c10f0. Changing >AllocationBase to BaseAddress worked for my test case out of pure luck, >with my larger libraries it still failed. > >Looking at one of the libraries in my code that fails I get ( with the >atexit at 0x78351c9 ) > >remove_dll_atexit; >m.AllocationBase = 0x7820000 >m.AllocationBase + m.RegionSize = 0x7824000 > >GDB; >from = 0x07821000 >to = 0x079159b8 > >With both of these examples I checked the dll using objdump and the >atexit functions where in the .text portion but RegionSize never seems >big enough to cover it entirely. For that last dll objdump reports the >text size as 61380. Of course I could be reading objdump wrong, I've >only every really used it to check exported functions. > >Cribbing from the gdb source code, it looks like they use BaseAddrees + >0x1000 for the start point and then call GetModuleInformation to workout >the size of the module.
Yeah, duh. "they" == "me". I should have checked gdb for this since I've already done this research once before. If you do find that this works, then I think this may fall into the realm of a non-trivial patch so it may be best to just tell me what you've found rather than provide a patch - unless you want to go through the approval process with Red Hat. Or, you can just wait for me to adapt what's in gdb to cygwin. I can do tonight when I get back to a windows system. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
