httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>
Subject RE: DLL Base addresses (was: .dsp link options)
Date Wed, 19 Apr 2000 02:52:35 GMT
> From: Tim Costello [mailto:timcostello@ozemail.com.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 7:33 AM

Tim, very seriously thank you for all the insight!

It's dawning on me why your statement that addresses don't 
reside in the library is (most likely) accurate.  If most
every reference is stored in the dll-linkage segment,
and it's all by value, there is little time in address
resolution there.

And of course, Apache.exe won't be relocating, nor require
any fixups itself.

> > Scuttle the proposed patch from Tim (and my revision).
> > I agree this is more work, but at least it's in one place!

> I still don't like something that people have to manually calculate and update.

Well, no heavy duty calculation, at least... (can't everyone 
count backwards in hex? :-)

> I guess I was working with the assumption that the number of output files 
> produced wouldn't be changing very often, but that the size of each output file
> would be quite volatile. 

Actually, I doubt either is true.  Given that both Gregs, you
and I are all well versed (FirstBill himself has undoubtedly 
absorbed this all), and that neither the module sizes nor
names will change frequently, it's a coin toss to me.

I'm leaning on the reference table.  I like explicit intent,
but I'm mostly concerned about:

          debug   release     mixed
aprlib  @6FF6-F   @6FF9-F   @6FF6-F (debug)
ACore   @6FF0-5   @6FF7-9   @6FF7-9 (release)    
          great     great      ugh!

I'll take you as pro-editbin.
I'll take Greg as pro-ref table.

More opinions?  Your choice FirstBill, Jeff, Ryan, others?  

There are two good patches, let's kill this fast.

Mime
View raw message