Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 08:28:35 -0500
From: Jason Tishler <jason AT tishler DOT net>
To: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
Cc: Ralf Habacker <Ralf DOT Habacker AT freenet DOT de>,
   Cygwin <cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: rebase addon - Bas and Size listing of dll's without rebasing
Message-ID: <20020103132835.GB1940@dothill.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>,
	Ralf Habacker <Ralf DOT Habacker AT freenet DOT de>,
	Cygwin <cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
References: <000c01c18e49$22279220$526307d5 AT BRAMSCHE> <20011227180503 DOT GD2204 AT dothill DOT com> <045401c18f33$844d7f60$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <045401c18f33$844d7f60$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i

Rob,

On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 11:06:35AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Tishler" <jason AT tishler DOT net>
> > After the above is completed, then I would entertain adding such an
> > option if the community deemed it appropriate.  But, wouldn't
> > implementing it via ReBaseImage()'s fReBase parameter as opposed to
> > plucking certain bytes out of the executable be a better approach?  I
> > presume that this is how MS implements their '-s' (just sum image
> range)
> > option.
> 
> IMO we should be using bfd not the MS helper libraries - in the long
> term. Otherwise one cannot do any of this as part of a cross compile or
> cross-manipulation toolkit.

Good point.

I'm willing to do the right thing, but that is going to take longer given
the ramp up necessary for me learn about binutils' configury/make, bfd,
etc.  However, I would like to get a rebase solution into setup.exe ASAP.
Is a two prong approach acceptable?  In the short term, add rebase to
winsup/utils, integrate directly into setup.exe, etc.  In the long term,
add rebase to binutils, integrate with ld, etc.

Jason

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/