X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <49A986B4.2080501@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
References: <499F6682 DOT 1090204 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> 	 <20090224100616 DOT GC6035 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> 	 <49A85971 DOT 6070300 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> 	 <20090228104337 DOT GG19887 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> 	 <49A986B4 DOT 2080501 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:34:01 -0500
Message-ID: <17393e3e0902281134w490c75d8p926dcbca94dfb0d1@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [1.7] rebaseall doesn't solve the problem
From: Matt Wozniski <godlygeek AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT 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

On 2/28/09, Charles Wilson wrote:
>  Maybe the aslr functionality is different enough -- and useful in enough
>  contexts that differ from rebasing -- that instead of incorporating
>  'call aslr TOO' into rebaseall, there should be a separate 'aslrall' script?

+1 for that suggestion.  It's doing something completely different.
It will only work on systems with ASLR, which IIUC excludes XP SP1 and
2000.  Even where it will work, rebasing might still be required if
there are too many DLLs for _MiImageBitMap to track them all.  Where
it does work completely, the rebasing part of rebaseall should be
unneeded, right?  All of that seems to speak to a desire to have it
available as a separate script, though maybe having a flag for
rebaseall to call that script would be useful.

Hope I didn't misunderstand any of this discussion...  :-)

~Matt

--
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/