On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 02:28:32PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > >>Doesn't libtool always defines --image-base when building a DLL, or is >>this only with ancient libtool versions? > >only ancient versions did this. Versions of libtool that are merely >immensely old defined '--enable-auto-image-base'. No version in the >lasts three years or so defined either flag. > >The ancient-to-old transition of --image-base=FIXED to >--enable-auto-image-base makes sense. But the old-to-recent transition, >removing the --enable-auto-image-base flag entirely, doesn't. I'm not >sure why that was done. > >I vaguely remember somebody more knowledgeable (Danny? cgf? Mumit?) >than I suggesting that --e-a-i-b was a bad default choice -- but I don't >remember who or why, and I can't find it in the archives.
I vaguely recall this, too. I'm probably being terribly inconsistent by even suggesting it. Is it possible that some DLL was defaulting to cygwin's default load address? cgf
