On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 07:53:48PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >Charles Wilson wrote: >> I'll try to find the *original* discussion of this issue, which should >> have occured BEFORE June 2001... > >I think the previous discussion that Robert mentioned was actually only >a few days earlier in June 2001, on the cygwin-developers list: > >"dll base address" >http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2001-06/msg00037.html > >It doesn't add much to this current discussion, beyond what is contained >in the threads I've already posted. There is this, tho: > >"Re: ld --auto-import for cygwin and libtool" >http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-07/msg00039.html > >> ps. the relevant history in a nutshell: >> >> 1) Paul releases his patch (documented as just adding --auto-import) >> 2) Robert (thats me :]) starts playing with it and finds fork() is >> broken >> 3) Robert finds that the [DLL] relocation is the problem >> 4) Robert finds that Pauls patch _ALSO_ enabled --auto-image-base, >> which is [normally] disabled by default. > >Which goes back to the reason why disentangling the discussion of >enabling auto-image-base by default, and the discussion of adding >auto-import functionality to binutils, was separated.
That sounds like auto-image-base was locating some dlls into cygwin's address space. Danny's patch should fix that, I think. Either that or we should just decide where all of the dlls should live. cgf
