X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<45AD22D0.BB29ECEE@dessent.net>
Date:	Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:09:04 -0800
From:	Brian Dessent <brian AT dessent DOT net>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Cygwin Python/PIL TCL/TK fork rebase solution
References:	<03de01c7399f$b32247a0$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-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
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:

>   We probably still would.  First, the hash might collide and put two dlls in
> the same slot, and second, any dll greater than 1Mb overlaps into the next
> hash slot.

Well, if we found either of those things happening I think the logical
choice would be to robustify the hashing code in ld to try to avoid it
rather than fall back to running rebaseall again, but I take your point.

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 -