On Feb 11 12:24, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On 2014-02-11 04:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Feb 10 15:07, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> >>When running rebase on multiple DLLs for x86, downwards rollover is
> >>now going back to the top of the 64-bit address space, which isn't
> >>right for x86 imag
On Feb 11 19:24, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen writes:
> > Thanks for catching. We should not rollover indiscriminately into the
> > upper two gigs either, though. It won't work for real 32 bit systems,
> > only for WOW64 systems.
>
> It could even be argued that rebase should simply bai
Corinna Vinschen writes:
> Thanks for catching. We should not rollover indiscriminately into the
> upper two gigs either, though. It won't work for real 32 bit systems,
> only for WOW64 systems.
It could even be argued that rebase should simply bail out (just like it
does when it cannot rebase)
On 2014-02-11 04:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 10 15:07, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
When running rebase on multiple DLLs for x86, downwards rollover is
now going back to the top of the 64-bit address space, which isn't
right for x86 images. This patch should restore the previous
behaviour of
On Feb 10 15:07, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> When running rebase on multiple DLLs for x86, downwards rollover is
> now going back to the top of the 64-bit address space, which isn't
> right for x86 images. This patch should restore the previous
> behaviour of rolling over (under?) to the top of the
