Re: Apache 1.3.22 on cygwin under XP - loosing data

[Jason Tishler <jason@tishler.net>]

Paul,

On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 08:32:13AM -0400, Paul McFerrin wrote:
> I had to rebase everything manually myself.  Without the rebase, the
> httpd processes could not even complete a fork!

The above is a well known issue that affects other Cygwin applications
such as Python too.

> The arguments that I used were the same used by someone else for a
> different application and not specificially Apache.

The above is correct.

> I've asked someone to shed some light on educating me on just what
> those arguments mean so I don't have to be in the dark on this subject.

The options to my rebase tool:

    $ rebase     
    usage: rebase -b BaseAddress [-d] [-o Offset] ImageFileName ...

have the same semantics as the ones supported by MS's tool:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/tools/perfutil_2z39.asp

I added the "-o Offset" option to spread out the base address by an
extra Offset amount because packing the DLLs "too close" can Cygwin's
fork() to still fail.

> Heck I really don't know if they are suitable for Apache.

Rebasing is suitable for all Cygwin apps that suffer from the DLL base
address conflict fork() issue.  Unfortunately, some DLLs do not survive
the rebase process.  It is yet to be determined why.  Want to help
figure this out?

> I too would like to get this issue resolved.

Me too.  The rebase functionality will ultimately be integrated into
Cygwin's setup.exe.

> Jason are you listening?

Yes.  Hmm...

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/