On Feb 28 14:51, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 01:47:16PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > >Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> If so, I'm wondering if setting the TS-aware flag shouldn't become > >> default in GCC. What do you say, Dave? Would that be possible? > > > >I'd probably wait on that for the /next/ release (e.g. after 4.3.2-2), > >[...] > >Maybe the aslr functionality is different enough -- and useful in enough > >contexts that differ from rebasing -- that instead of incorporating > >'call aslr TOO' into rebaseall, there should be a separate 'aslrall' script? > > It should be trivial to add this to binutils. Doesn't it ultimately > belong in ld and (maybe) objcopy?
Yes, that should be done in ld. > I can add this now but I don't think it should be the default just yet. If the TS-aware flag actually helps to avoid the tsappcmp.dll bug, then I think the flag should be set by ld by default for Cygwin apps. > >That would be nice. However, ONLY exe's linked with cygwin1.dll should > >be marked this way, right? Not cygcheck, strace, and whatever other few > >exes we might find in the cygwin installation lists. > > Do the exes themselves need this bit as well as the dlls? Only exes require the TS-aware bit. Two interesting snippets from MSDN: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc834995(VS.85).aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/01cfys9z.aspx The first one actually explains that the overhead of loading a compatibility DLL can be avoided by using the TS-aware flag. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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/
