Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:40:15 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject: Re: dll base address
Message-ID: <20010610004015.D29231@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
References: <001f01c0f0e6$72b8ec80$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <001f01c0f0e6$72b8ec80$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>; from robert.collins@itdomain.com.au on Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 11:16:51PM +1000

On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 11:16:51PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>I haven't fixed the problem I reported with Paul Solovoskys patched ld,
>but I have a lead... it seems to be that cygwin1.dll is loaded after a
>dll that I was linking to, and that cygwin1.dll is getting relocated :
>
>(gdb) info dll
>DLL Name                               Load Address
>f:/src/ldt/auto-import-sample/dll.dll  610c1000
>e:/cygwin/bin/cygwin1.dll              02561000
>e:/winnt/system32/kernel32.dll         77e81000
>e:/winnt/system32/advapi32.dll         77db1000
>e:/winnt/system32/rpcrt4.dll           77d41000
>(gdb) print __cygwin_user_data
>Cannot access memory at address 0x610933a0
>
>As you can see, cygwin1.dll has been loaded at 02561000. It seems to me
>that if __cygwin_user_data is a non-relocatble variable, that we should
>mark cygwin1.dll as non-relocatable.
>
>Thoughts?

It's possible that this is just an artifact of faulty handling by gdb.
I'm not aware of any reason for cygwin1.dll to be unrelocatable.

If you look at the definition of __cygwin_user_data you'll see that
there is nothing magic about it.

Alternate theories is that there is either something wrong with gcc/binutils,
that we are missing something in the way that cygwin1.dll is linked, or
that there is something wrong with Paul's patched ld.

cgf