Re: setup.exe rebase patch

[Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>]

Robert Collins wrote:

> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cygwin-apps@cygwin.com] 
>>
> 
>>However, I agree that rebasing shouldn't be the default 
>>behavior.  In fact, I wonder if I should make cygwin 
>>non-rebaseable.  It would load faster if I did that.
>>
> 
> Yes, and it would solve some of the nasty faults -auto-image-base. (The strange behaviour of often choosing a base that collides with cygwin).
> 
> Rob
> 

Note: libtool-devel does not use auto-image-base.  I don't THINK 
libtool-stable does, either.  And all of "my" DLLs have been rebuilt 
over the last several months without auto-image-base.  Just FYI.

Also, there was some code passed back and forth a while ago (Rob, yours 
maybe?) that purported to add a "non-relocatable" option to binutils.  I 
don't remember the specifics, but I think there were some problems with 
that particular implementation.  A working version that added a 
"non-relocatable" option to ld when creating a DLL would be a nice 
addition to binutils.  Anybody remember more about this?  I'm drawing a 
blank...

--Chuck