X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<43F62223.A896948A@dessent.net>
Date:	Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:21:07 -0800
From:	Brian Dessent <brian AT dessent DOT net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: "have you looked into rebaseall?"
References:	<016901c633f4$902f65e0$a501a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Dave Korn wrote:

>   Absolutely so.  I reckon doing a proper rebaseall that includes the oracle
> dlls should make a noticeable difference.

This is important.  The rebaseall script only knows about DLLs installed
via setup.exe.  So, you will need to provide a list of any additional
DLLs that you want rebased, with the -T argument.

I haven't been following this thread all that closely, but are we
talking about allocating a single large contiguous memory region? 
Because if you try to allocate it all at once then the DLL layout will
matter, but if it's done as a series of smaller allocations then this
should be irrelevant.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -