Hermann,
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 07:47:13AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 11:06:29PM +0200, Hermann Klocker wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/local/bin
> > $ rebaseall -T list1 -v > rb.out
> > /usr/bin/tclpip84.dll: skipped because not rebaseable
> > /usr/local/bin/mpich.dll: skipped because not rebaseable
> > /usr/local/bin/mpichd.dll: skipped because not rebaseable
> > /usr/local/bin/mpicherr.dll: skipped because not rebaseable
> > /usr/local/bin/PHXCppApi.dll: skipped because not rebaseable
> >
> > Do you have any hints regarding this problem?
>
> At the moment no. However, I was able to reproduce the above. I will
> enhance rebase to indicated why it thinks a DLL is not rebaseable when
> the verbose option is specified.
Although I haven't enhanced rebase as described above, I have determined
why rebase doesn't consider the Dakota DLLs rebaseable. The first check
rebase does is to make sure a DLL is a valid PE file. The second check
is to make sure it is relocatable.
The Dakota DLLs fail the PE check. This can also be demonstrated by
using file:
$ file *.dll
PHXCppApi.dll: MS-DOS executable (EXE), OS/2 or MS Windows
mpich.dll: MS-DOS executable (EXE), OS/2 or MS Windows
mpichd.dll: MS-DOS executable (EXE), OS/2 or MS Windows
mpicherr.dll: MS-DOS executable (EXE), OS/2 or MS Windows
How were the Dakota DLLs built? This could affect their ability to be
rebased.
Jason
--
PGP/GPG Key: http://www.tishler.net/jason/pubkey.asc or key servers
Fingerprint: 7A73 1405 7F2B E669 C19D 8784 1AFD E4CC ECF4 8EF6
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
