This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: --enable-auto-import extension
- From: egor duda <deo at logos-m dot ru>
- To: Christopher Faylor <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:21:32 +0400
- Subject: Re: --enable-auto-import extension
- Organization: deo
- References: <1212929671.20020628141818@logos-m.ru><3D1D08A1.9070505@ece.gatech.edu> <180259441557.20020701104656@logos-m.ru><3D20C981.8020407@ece.gatech.edu> <903891375.20020702193614@logos-m.ru><3D234258.9050008@ece.gatech.edu> <553442059.20020704111927@logos-m.ru><20020815174953.GB11548@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: egor duda <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
Hi!
Thursday, 15 August, 2002 Christopher Faylor cgf@redhat.com wrote:
CF> What's the status of this change? I'd vote for including it in ld
CF> iff it is only invoked when the option is specifically used. Then
CF> we can add the appropriate changes to cygwin, make a new release, and
CF> then make a binutils release as well.
I've snailed a copyright assignment by air mail a couple of weeks ago,
but probably it haven't been delivered yet.
I think now we can do the following:
>>should be added after new binutils package (in which ld exports
>>___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST__ and ___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST_END__)
>>is released.
>>Or we can only export them in pe.sc for now, and go ahead with cygwin
>>(and mingw, if anybody's interested) change. It'd just have no effect
>>until full ld patch is applied.
it's trivial (i hope) change to binutils and i already have an assignment
with cygwin.
In a discussion in cygwin-patches@ you proposed to move call to
_pei386_runtime_relocator from crt0.o to cygwin1.dll. I did it, but
haven't tested it yet in case when pseudo-relocs are present in dll,
not exe file.
CF> On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 11:19:27AM +0400, egor duda wrote:
>>Wednesday, 03 July, 2002 Charles Wilson cwilson@ece.gatech.edu wrote:
>>
>>CW> The new version looks good to me; I built and ran your test without
>>CW> problems. I do have a suggestion for later, when
>>CW> --enable-runtime-pseudo-reloc is made the default: in pe-dll.c (around
>>CW> line 2209) change
>>
>>CW> if (pe_dll_extra_pe_debug)
>>CW> printf ("creating runtime pseudo-reloc entry for %s (addend=%d)\n",
>>CW> fixup_name, addend);
>>
>>CW> to
>>
>>CW> if (link_info.pei386_runtime_pseudo_reloc == -1)
>>CW> info_msg (_("creating runtime pseudo-reloc entry for %s (addend=%d)\n"),
>>CW> fixup_name, addend);
>>
>>CW> So that if pseudo_reloc is implicitly enabled, print messages for each
>>CW> psuedo-reloc entry (but not all that other pe_dll_extra_pe_debug stuff).
>>CW> It's not a warning, but its info the user probably needs to know if he
>>CW> didn't explicitly say "--enable-runtime-pseudo-reloc".
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>CW> The business with fork() and -DNO_RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_SUPPORT stuff in
>>CW> your example is a bit confusing -- do you have some pending
>>CW> patches to cygwin1.dll?
>>
>>Yes, i've sent them yesterday to cygwin-patches@. Of course, they
>>should be added after new binutils package (in which ld exports
>>___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST__ and ___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST_END__)
>>is released.
>>
>>Or we can only export them in pe.sc for now, and go ahead with cygwin
>>(and mingw, if anybody's interested) change. It'd just have no effect
>>until full ld patch is applied.
Egor. mailto:deo@logos-m.ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19