Subject: Re: MUCH faster cygwin.dll was RE:Time and motion studies of gcc and egcs and LCC
From: [email-masked] (Trevor Yann)

16 Feb 1998 20:47:02 -0800
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: [email-masked]

Mikey wrote:
> 

<stuff deleted>

> Geoff I would recommend using --image-base=0x78000000
> for cygwin.dll same as MSVCRT.DLL which is relocatable
> and should never be loaded in the same VM anyway.

This might not be a good assumption - the next version of Mingw32 looks
like it will use MSVCRT.DLL:

"The next version of Mingw32 will be 0.2.0, and will offer capabilities
for using the MSVC libraries instead of CRTDLL (which may or may not be
a Good Thing- comments are welcome)"

(From the Mingw32 web page at
http://www.fu.is.saga-u.ac.jp/~colin/gcc.html)

Maybe --image-base=0x5f400000 would be better. This is the same as
mfc42.dll.

Once a dll is stripped of relocation information, it will only load if
the required address range (starting at the image base) is available.
Just changing the image base without stripping the relocation
information is safer.

Is most of the speed up a result of changing the image base, or from the
stripping afterwards? (I got a new machine recently, and haven't
reinstalled the gnuwin32 stuff yet).
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".