[PATCH RFC] fork: reduce chances for "address space is already occupied" errors

Brian Inglis Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca
Mon Apr 1 20:46:00 GMT 2019

On 2019-04-01 10:31, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> On 4/1/19 5:56 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Apr  1 16:56, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Apr  1 16:28, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/19 9:30 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>> can you please collect the base addresses of all DLLs generated during
>>>>> the build, plus their size and make a sorted list?  It would be
>>>>> interesting to know if the hash algorithm in ld is actually as bad
>>>>> as I conjecture.
>>>> Please find attached the output of rebase -i for the dlls after bootstrap
>>>> on Cygwin 3.0.4, each built with ld from binutils-2.31.1.
>> Oh, wait.  That's not what I was looking for.  The addresses are ok, but
>> the paths *must* be the ones at the time the DLLs have been created,
>> because that's what ld uses when creating the image base addresses.
> Maybe I can provide that one as well.
>> The
>> addresses combined with the installation paths don't make sense anymore.
>> Apart from that, since you seem to be installing the DLLs anyway, can't
>> you combine every crucial point during installation with a rebase?
> This is what I'm after now, but I may need to introduce something like
> additional readonly databases plus some --unregister option to rebase.

Check my questions and Achim's answers in the other subthread for existing ways
to deal with your issues that are only semi-documented.

Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains
too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised.

More information about the Cygwin-patches mailing list