On May 29 12:48, marco atzeri wrote: > Il 5/29/2013 12:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen ha scritto: > >Hi Marco, > > > >On May 29 12:14, marco atzeri wrote: > >>Il 5/27/2013 11:34 AM, Corinna Vinschen ha scritto: > >>>On May 26 08:40, marco atzeri wrote: > >>>>trying to build octave I hit: > >> > >>> > >>>You can try. The general idea was that this isn't necessary. > >>>-mcmodel=medium is default and despite the text you're quoting, the idea > >>>was that the base address of the result shouldn't matter on PE/COFF. > >>>Unfortunately the linker is making a fuss about that yet and maybe > >>>there's still another problem as well. > >>> > >>>So you have two choices: > >>> > >>>- Try -mcmodel=large, but there's a good chance it crashes (harfbuzz > >>> apparently does). > >> > >>it crashed, but it could be another reason as also the second option > >>failed with 1.7.18-6 > >>> > >>>- Link with -Wl,--image-base-address -Wl,0x10000000 and rebase the > >>> DLLs afterwards to some arbitrary address between 0x4:00000000 and > >>> 0x6:00000000. This should work as expected. > >> > >>this worked. (-Wl,--image-base -Wl,0x10000000") > >>with latest 1.7.18-8 not with 1.7.18-6 > > > >Sorry to say that, but this is not overly helpful. For one thing, you > >mean 1.7.19, not 18, right? How exactly did it work with 1.7.19-8? > >Only after using --image-base 0x10000000 or also after the rebase? > > 1.7.19. no need to rebase for "make check"
And does it still work after rebasing it to a high address? > >What exactly did not work with 1.7.19-6? Building or running? > > running. it was segfaulting almost on start. > Rebase made no difference; same for CFLAGS="-fwrapv" Do you have a stackdump file? > Did you > >only try with --image-base 0x10000000 or also with rebase? To what > >address did you rebase? If building worked but running didn't, what has > >gone wrong? Was it a fork problem, perhaps? Any hints from the > >stackdump? GDB? Did you check for a collision with another DLL? > > > >Also, what about 1.7.19-7? The difference between -6, -7, and -8 is > >exactly one patch per version. It might be interesting to learn about > >the patch which, apparently, fixed the problem. > > I missed the 1.7.19-7 during my tests, do you need I test it ? It would be nice. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat