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
Message-ID: <003901c0f174$cecc9bf0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <001f01c0f0e6$72b8ec80$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010610004015 DOT D29231 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: dll base address
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:15:54 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jun 2001 06:05:52.0256 (UTC) FILETIME=[67463000:01C0F173]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: <cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: dll base address


> 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.

Do we account for a different base address when spawn()ing and
fork()ing? I haven't looked deep enough to tell, but I can assert that
the trivial test case with Paul's ld works when spawn()ed when the .dll
created has a non-colliding base address.

Rob

> 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
>