process-startup headache.

Christopher Faylor
Sat Jun 9 21:43:00 GMT 2001

I haven't waded through my email but I assume that this probably
is quoted from the cygwin list since it seems to have shown up
here with no preceding messages.

Can I ask that when people decide to move a discussion here that they
provide enough context to understand what people are talking about?

For instance, the words "A similar-in-appearance problem is
occurring..." would be helped with something indicating what the
similarity was referring to.


On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 11:35:20PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert Collins" <>
>> Hi folk,
>> A similar-in-appearance problem is occuring with binaries linked by a
>> patched ld.exe, (which I just installed tonight, so the first thing is
>> not an artifact of that). I'm trying out Paul Solovosky{I hope thats
>> right}'s ld-that-auto-imports.
>This problem is not related to the slow startup problem. The problem is
>that the .dll's generated by Paul's ld, have a default base address of
>0x610c0000 which collides with cygwin's base addres of 0x61000000.
>Cygwin doesn't seem to be relocatable in practice, even though the .dll
>is marked as relocatable.
>Workaround: To build .dll's with the patched ld that work with cygwin
>1.3.2 use -Wl,--image-base=0x10000000 on the gcc commandle line.
>(0x10000000 is the default .dll address according to MSDN. [don't
>use --dll - --dll creates the 0x610c0000 address that doesn't work).
>Long term solution:I think cygwin1.dll should be marked non-relocatable
>to prevent .dll's that collide with the cygwin1.dll causing crashes and
>unexplained behaviour.

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list