Observation for ALL maintainers who provide dlls (was Re: question for perl maintainer)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 02:28:32PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
>
>>Doesn't libtool always defines --image-base when building a DLL, or is
>>this only with ancient libtool versions?
>
>only ancient versions did this.  Versions of libtool that are merely 
>immensely old defined '--enable-auto-image-base'.  No version in the 
>lasts three years or so defined either flag.
>
>The ancient-to-old transition of --image-base=FIXED to 
>--enable-auto-image-base makes sense.  But the old-to-recent transition, 
>removing the --enable-auto-image-base flag entirely, doesn't.  I'm not 
>sure why that was done.
>
>I vaguely remember somebody more knowledgeable (Danny?  cgf?  Mumit?) 
>than I suggesting that --e-a-i-b was a bad default choice -- but I don't 
>remember who or why, and I can't find it in the archives.

I vaguely recall this, too.  I'm probably being terribly inconsistent by
even suggesting it.  Is it possible that some DLL was defaulting to
cygwin's default load address?

cgf