X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 17:48:07 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: simplifying rebaseall Message-ID: <20100918214807.GA29546@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <4C938040.3080704@cwilson.fastmail.fm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 08:36:28PM +0200, Al wrote: >>> A second thought. I wonder if reabaseall could be improved to run from >>> within bash, without the need to close down all running windows. Then >>> it could even be included into build scripts to be run after each >>> build. >> >> No, because the DLLs used by bash are OFTEN the ones that actually DO >> need to be rebased (because they are used by darn near everything, so we >> need to ensure that their image base does not conflict with anything >> else): libintl, libiconv, libncurses, ... >> > >What I suggest isn't that usefull when you think to base all >DLL that have been installed by setup.exe. It becomes usefull in the >moment the user starts to compile his own DLL especially if he used >scripts to control compilation. To compile somethng is a typical use >of cygwin. No, it really isn't. >I try to be more precise. Let's call it rebaseplus, but it's >code is to 80% similar to rebaseall and duplication of code has known >disadvantages. > >Once rebaseall has been run from ash we can be sure the listed DLLs >have sane addresses and bash does work. Now rebaseplus can be run from >within bash (and scripts) using a user contributed list of DLL (-T-option). >It would base the user contributed DLL into a different address space than >rebaseall does. This isn't a bad idea but it's not really a typical use case. Perhaps you'd like to offer a patch to rebaseall to accomplish this? cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple