On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 07:59:12AM -0800, James R. Phillips wrote:
> I have put a half-hour of googling into trying to find out how to
> verify or discover the assigned base address of the dll
> (/usr/lib/lapack/cyglapack.dll). No luck. So, I give up. How do you
> discover this information?
Use
--- Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> It had sounded like there was consensus that -Wl,--enable-auto-image-base
> should be used to build all dlls. Right now, we're a long way away from
> that goal:
>
[...]
>
> James R. Phillips:
> fftw3
> lapack
OK, I'll stipulate to that fact for
Brian Dessent wrote:
"Gerrit P. Haase" wrote:
perlTk and Ruby. I don't understand why perlTk doesn't has random base
addresses, it should use ld2 as linker when building (but obviously it
wasn't used).
The reported problem with perl/tk had nothing to do with the perl/tk
DLLs, it was a pro
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:06:59PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
> "Gerrit P. Haase" wrote:
>
> > perlTk and Ruby. I don't understand why perlTk doesn't has random base
> > addresses, it should use ld2 as linker when building (but obviously it
> > wasn't used).
>
> The reported problem with perl/t
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 07:55:06AM +0100, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 03:44:48AM -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> >
> >>It had sounded like there was consensus that -Wl,--enable-auto-image-base
> >>should be used to build all dlls. R
"Gerrit P. Haase" wrote:
> perlTk and Ruby. I don't understand why perlTk doesn't has random base
> addresses, it should use ld2 as linker when building (but obviously it
> wasn't used).
The reported problem with perl/tk had nothing to do with the perl/tk
DLLs, it was a problem with cygz.dll nee
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Openssl uses a unique base address for libcrypto but not for libssl,
maybe both should use it? IMO important candidates are Apache/Apache2,
perlTk and Ruby. I don't understand why perlTk doesn't has random base
addresses, it should use ld2 as linker when building (but
Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 03:44:48AM -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
It had sounded like there was consensus that -Wl,--enable-auto-image-base
should be used to build all dlls. Right now, we're a long way away from
that goal:
Should I have marked this in
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 03:44:48AM -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> It had sounded like there was consensus that -Wl,--enable-auto-image-base
> should be used to build all dlls. Right now, we're a long way away from
> that goal:
Should I have marked this in the subject "Attention all maint
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 04:20:51AM +0100, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>
> >Gerrit P. Haase:
> > expat
> > freeglut
> > jasper
> > libcroco06
> > libdb4.2
> > libdb4.3
> > libexif10
> > openjade
> > OpenSP
>
> There are new DB, Expat
Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
Gerrit P. Haase:
expat
freeglut
jasper
libcroco06
libdb4.2
libdb4.3
libexif10
openjade
OpenSP
There are new DB, Expat and OpenSP releases on the way, no need to
rebuild the older version IMO.
It had sounded like there was consensus that -Wl,--enable-auto-image-base
should be used to build all dlls. Right now, we're a long way away from
that goal:
Maintainers of packages containing non-auto-image-based dlls (actually,
dlls with ImageBase of 1000 or less; some packages not listed ma
12 matches
Mail list logo
