On Aug 3 22:19, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Aug 3 15:02, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 21:03 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > Better drop the large address stuff for now. Since the heap is now in > > > the large addres area(*), and since mmaps will go there, too(*), we have > > > basically a lot more free space in the area up to 0x7fffffff. > > > > At this moment, I've got DLLs from 0xf0000000 all the way down to > > 0xa1740000, and I could easily have more if I installed all of KDE > > (which I provide in Ports, but I prefer to use GNOME). So where do you > > suggest I find that kind of open space in the lower half? > > Did you use the current rebaseall? If so you have a 64K hole between > each DLL. Other than that I don't have an answer for you. There's only > so much you can do within the 32 bit address space. That's only one > reason why a 64 bit Cygwin would be a good idea.
Of course there are other answers, but their implementation is really tricky: - Analyze all executables and rebase DLLs which are not used together in the same executable to the same addresses. Not good for runtime loading. - Replace the Windows loader with your own loader in Cygwin. You'll never have to rebase again. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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
