On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:59:09AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >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?
I saw the comment. I've never looked at the code in question so I didn't have a ready answer.