On Feb 15 11:44, David Allsopp wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 9 13:12, David Allsopp wrote:
> > > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > On Feb 9 11:29, David Allsopp wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > When this was originally encountered for 64-bit MSVC (this was all
>
>
>
> > > > I'm cur
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 9 13:12, David Allsopp wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Feb 9 11:29, David Allsopp wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > When this was originally encountered for 64-bit MSVC (this was all
> > > I'm curious why this isn't done yet.
> >
> > I'm hoping that doin
On Feb 9 13:12, David Allsopp wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 9 11:29, David Allsopp wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > When this was originally encountered for 64-bit MSVC (this was all
> > > added before Cygwin64 existed), the solution at the time was to keep
> > > the preferred base addresse
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 9 12:40, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 9 11:29, David Allsopp wrote:
> > > > Apart from that, not only Cygwin DLLs but also the Windows system
> > > > DLLs are all loaded and relocated to the area beyond 0x1:8000,
> > > > so relocation beyond the 32 bit a
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 9 11:29, David Allsopp wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Feb 8 11:47, David Allsopp wrote:
> > > > TL;DR flexlink-compiled DLLs (i.e. ocaml libraries) are broken by
> > > > the
> > > > 0x2 base address requirement added in rebase 4.4.4.
> > > > P
On Feb 9 12:40, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 9 11:29, David Allsopp wrote:
> > > Apart from that, not only Cygwin DLLs but also the Windows system DLLs
> > > are all loaded and relocated to the area beyond 0x1:8000, so
> > > relocation beyond the 32 bit address space is no generic problem
On Feb 9 11:29, David Allsopp wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 8 11:47, David Allsopp wrote:
> > > TL;DR flexlink-compiled DLLs (i.e. ocaml libraries) are broken by the
> > > 0x2 base address requirement added in rebase 4.4.4. Possible
> > > fixes for this at the bottom.
> > >
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 8 11:47, David Allsopp wrote:
> > TL;DR flexlink-compiled DLLs (i.e. ocaml libraries) are broken by the
> > 0x2 base address requirement added in rebase 4.4.4. Possible
> > fixes for this at the bottom.
> > [...]
> > $ ocaml
> > OCaml version 4.
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 8 11:47, David Allsopp wrote:
> > TL;DR flexlink-compiled DLLs (i.e. ocaml libraries) are broken by the
> > 0x2 base address requirement added in rebase 4.4.4. Possible
> > fixes for this at the bottom.
> >
> > Commit bfd383 in the rebase sources introduces
On Feb 8 11:47, David Allsopp wrote:
> TL;DR flexlink-compiled DLLs (i.e. ocaml libraries) are broken by the
> 0x2 base address requirement added in rebase 4.4.4. Possible fixes
> for this at the bottom.
> [...]
> $ ocaml
> OCaml version 4.04.2
>
> # #load "unix.cma";;
> C
On Feb 8 11:47, David Allsopp wrote:
> TL;DR flexlink-compiled DLLs (i.e. ocaml libraries) are broken by the
> 0x2 base address requirement added in rebase 4.4.4. Possible fixes
> for this at the bottom.
>
> Commit bfd383 in the rebase sources introduces a new minimum base address
> requi
TL;DR flexlink-compiled DLLs (i.e. ocaml libraries) are broken by the
0x2 base address requirement added in rebase 4.4.4. Possible fixes
for this at the bottom.
Commit bfd383 in the rebase sources introduces a new minimum base address
requirement of 0x2 for Cygwin64. This is a prob
12 matches
Mail list logo
