On 2019-04-01 10:31, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > > On 4/1/19 5:56 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Apr 1 16:56, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> On Apr 1 16:28, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: >>>> On 3/28/19 9:30 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>>> can you please collect the base addresses of all DLLs generated during >>>>> the build, plus their size and make a sorted list? It would be >>>>> interesting to know if the hash algorithm in ld is actually as bad >>>>> as I conjecture. >>>> >>>> Please find attached the output of rebase -i for the dlls after bootstrap >>>> on Cygwin 3.0.4, each built with ld from binutils-2.31.1. >> >> Oh, wait. That's not what I was looking for. The addresses are ok, but >> the paths *must* be the ones at the time the DLLs have been created, >> because that's what ld uses when creating the image base addresses. > > Maybe I can provide that one as well. > >> The >> addresses combined with the installation paths don't make sense anymore. >> >> Apart from that, since you seem to be installing the DLLs anyway, can't >> you combine every crucial point during installation with a rebase? > > This is what I'm after now, but I may need to introduce something like > additional readonly databases plus some --unregister option to rebase.
Check my questions and Achim's answers in the other subthread for existing ways to deal with your issues that are only semi-documented. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised.