Subject: Re: MUCH faster cygwin.dll
From: [email-masked]

21 Feb 1998 04:36:41 -0800
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
To: [email-masked]

>   Craig Dickson ([email-masked])
>   Thu, 19 Feb 1998 10:39:28 -0800
>
>As I think someone else pointed out, you may get msvcrt.dll whether you like
>it or not, so it's a bad idea to conflict with it. It's part of the OS, and
>various other parts of the OS, some of them used by cygwin (Winsock, for
>example) link to it.
>
>>The speedup is from stripping the .reloc section.
>>rebasing has no (or at most very minimal) effect
>>on time spent in relocation processing.
>>
>Absolutely NEVER assume that any particular range of addresses is available.
>Corollary: All DLLs must be relocatable.
>Just to be clear on one related point: I am not saying that DLLs should not
>be assigned optimal base addresses when linked. That's a good thing to do,
>because relocating a DLL can be somewhat costly. But when that optimal base
>address is not available, the DLL must be able to load elsewhere.
>
Gee guys, noone talks about the `-fPIC' option of gcc.  Using position-
independent code means never having to relocate.  Or does it?

-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".