X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Dave Korn" To: Subject: RE: "have you looked into rebaseall?" Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:30:21 -0000 Message-ID: <016d01c633f8$97cdf100$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <43F62223.A896948A@dessent.net> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On 17 February 2006 19:21, Brian Dessent wrote: > 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. Sorry for not being clearer, yes, that's exactly what I meant by 'proper' and 'includes the oracle dlls', but I didn't go lookup the exact syntax. > I haven't been following this thread all that closely, but are we > talking about allocating a single large contiguous memory region? Say, Brian, you are ponderin' what we've been ponderin'! ;-) > 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. Yep, it's the old huge-contiguous-allocation problem again. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- 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/