On Nov 21, 2007 9:53 PM, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I see, that makes sense. So perhaps we should not bother with the >>> current basing option in makefiles, and just leave it all to the >>> deployment stage? >> We might just leave them alone and rebase again on the deployment stage. >> That's the minumim change which allows to use large heaps. > I'm more interested in doing the 'right thing' rather than the 'minimum > change', but I won't argue strongly for it. Your position is obviously correct. For the sake of completeness we could update the makefiles for the components too, although it's not required.
> >> Looking at the doc for editbin, I agree that /largeaddressaware looks > >> like a good option too. How about /bind ? Given we just rebased the > >> DLLs it may help with start-up times? > > That makes sense for the sake of modularity, sure, but that's not the > > post-build action since we don't know what libraries will be used > > exactly. So we need to prepare for the worst case and relocate most of > > them. > Are we talking about the same thing. If I read /bind properly it > preloads the addresses of entry points assuming that the DLLs do not > conflict -- which we hope will be true after rebasing. Good shot, I've missed the point there. I would spend some time for studying /BIND behavior and come up with the result a bit later. Thanks, Aleksey, ESSD, Intel
