This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Cygwin Python/PIL TCL/TK fork rebase solution
Christopher Faylor <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 05:50:06PM +0000, Robin Walker wrote:
>>For this to be the problem it appears to be, I'm guessing that there must
>>be some shortcoming in the Windows APIs in this area when compared with
>>facilities available within other Posix-compliant OSs.
> It isn't a shortcoming at all. Windows is perfectly within its rights
> to put DLLs whereever it wants. Windows doesn't implement fork() so it
> doesn't have to worry about creating a new process whose addresss space
> is a carbon copy of another process.
>>How does Linux deal with the same issues of having libraries (or whatever
>>are logically equivalent to DLLs) potentially linked at different bases in
>>the two address spaces?
> fork() is part of the OS in Linux and the fork() function is absolutely
> intrinsic and necessary for anything on Linux or UNIX to work correctly.
> It doesn't have to deal with anything like this since a fork is in the
> low level of the OS, not in a library running in an application.
This has been an illuminating discussion and has given a lot more
detail to what I already understood about the rebase/fork issue.
I'd still like to understand how one chooses base address and offset
values for rebase, seeing as I was just shooting in the dark until
something said "OWW!" :)
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html