On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:34:04PM +0000, Steven O'Brien wrote: >Hi >I think I've found the problem with dlopen()/fork() on Win ME as >reported in >http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-02/msg02221.html >If I'm right, it also applies to win 95/98. > >in dll_init.cc: (dll_list::load_after_fork) a call is made to >LoadLibraryEx (d.name, NULL, DONT_RESOLVE_DLL_REFERENCES); > >According to the MSDN library, at >http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dllproc/base/loadlibraryex.asp >the symbol DONT_RESOLVE_DLL_REFERENCES is not supported on win 9x/Me. It >does not say what the result of using this value on those platforms is. >I suspect that this breaks the LoadLibraryEx call, so that the >subsequent FreeLibrary call ends up deallocating memory that was never >allocated, hence the crash. > >I have tried a patched version of dll_init.cc that uses plain >LoadLibrary instead of LoadLibraryEx on win 9x/Me, and with this patched >cygwin1.dll my test program runs correctly on all platforms. I have >attached the patch (cvs diff -up dll_init.cc). Could someone please >review this patch and apply it if it is acceptable?
I've looked at the patch. I don't exactly understand why it's necessary, though. If it was necessary, you'd think that we'd have a number of people complaining that dynamically linked DLLs don't work on ME. FWIW, the patch bypasses cygwin conventions by checking for version number in the middle of a function. See the wincap functionality for how this is supposed to be handled. I wonder if just a simple test for NULL being returned from LoadLibraryEx is all that is required. cgf -- 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/
