This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: BitDefender again

"Michael Kairys" <> wrote in message h73co7$tt1$">news:h73co7$tt1$
Thanks for the replies...

the suggestion to use a base address in the 0x35000000 area (or indeed
any of the others they mentioned) is going to horribly frag your heap and bork
your maximum allocatable memory limit, isn't it?

I don't know. How would I tell?

Wonder if it wouldn't work just as well to rebase /their/ DLL?

I don't know. Sounds scary given the liberties an AV program seems to take with the operating system... Should I try? How would I?

If you can figure out which DLL they are injecting, you can do exactly what they tell you to do, except using their DLL instead of the cygwin DLL.

Or you can go the easy route, and follow the instructions they have provided to rebase cygwin.dll. The person who wrote the message you quoted is obviously familar with Cygwin, since he has you use Cygwin's rebase utility. This indicates to me that he has actually tried the solution he mentions, and it has fixed the problem for him.

Problem reports:
Unsubscribe info:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]