Question of the necessity of rebaseall

[Andy Koppe]

> Remember, the semantics of fork is that BOTH processes (the parent and
> child) must see the SAME memory, and that includes all shared libraries
> being mapped at the SAME location.  But since Windows doesn't provide a
> native fork, the child must remap everything that the parent had, and hope
> that it lands at the same place.  Rebasing improves the chance that the
> child will remap, because there are fewer dlls to be remapped in an
> arbitrary order.

Shudder. I wonder whether MS's own POSIX layer, the snappily named
"Services for Unix Applications", has to go through the same
contortions or whether there isn't some hidden fork support somewhere.

Andy

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/