Chris? Ping? On Mar 15 10:12, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Mar 14 20:50, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > > On 2012-03-08 03:12, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >The assumption that the Cygwin DLL has a given size and will never > > >change is flawed. How are we supposed to add new functionality if the > > >DLL has to stick at a certain size? And even using another GCC can > > >easily change the size of the DLL, given changes in code generation. > > > > Improving rebase is great, but should something be done to fix > > compute_dll_image_base(), perhaps change the base to 0x61800000 to > > give plenty of room for Cygwin? > > I think that's a good idea. But 0x61800000 is a bit much, I think. The > most important factor for the bigger size of the Cygwin DLL was the > raise of the cygheap from 512K to 2 Megs. This won't happen anymore for > a loooooong time. Therefore, 0x61600000 should be more than enough for > a while. That gives us another 2 Megs for other DLLs. > > What do you think, Chris? Is that worth a new binutils?
Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat