X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,TW_GJ,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<4C27990E.5020901@comcast.net>
Date:	Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:31:42 -0400
From:	Ken <kstmp001 AT comcast DOT net>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100504 SeaMonkey/2.0.3; Firefox/3.6.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] CALL FOR TESTING: Cygwin 1.7.6 due soon - xterm stackdump - revised
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

UPDATE:
In my original post, I neglected to mention that I have also tried the 
current and
previous xterm packages (260-1 and 255-1 respectively) with no difference in
results.


 >A lot of changes and fixes have been made in Cygwin since 1.7.5 has
 >been released, so we're looking forward to release Cygwin 1.7.6 soon.
 >
 >Please test the latest developer snapshots at 
http://cygwin.com/snapshots/
 >which should have "Release Candidate" quality.

Under 1.7.5-1 in Win 7 64-bit, attempting to launch an xterm results in a
stackdump approximately 30%-40% of the time.  However, under WinXP
I have not experienced this issue.

I applied the entire "cygwin-inst-20100622.tar.bz2" snapshot to my Win7
installation and the same condition exists.

Details:
======
uname -a:
--------
CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW64 Win7i701 1.7.5s(0.227/5/3) 20100622 11:24:44 i686 
Cygwin

The following are some results from failed attempts (note: all attempts 
are from the same
running xterm session and with successes before and after these failures):

screen output:
------------------
$ /usr/bin/xterm
       1 [main] xterm 3540 exception::handle: Exception: 
STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
     206 [main] xterm 3540 open_stackdumpfile: Dumping stack trace to 
xterm.exe.stackdump
       1 [main] xterm 3248 exception::handle: Exception: 
STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
     216 [main] xterm 3248 open_stackdumpfile: Dumping stack trace to 
xterm.exe.stackdump
       1 [main] xterm 1636 exception::handle: Exception: 
STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
     221 [main] xterm 1636 open_stackdumpfile: Dumping stack trace to 
xterm.exe.stackdump
       1 [main] xterm 1544 exception::handle: Exception: 
STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
     206 [main] xterm 1544 open_stackdumpfile: Dumping stack trace to 
xterm.exe.stackdump
       1 [main] xterm 2728 exception::handle: Exception: 
STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
     220 [main] xterm 2728 open_stackdumpfile: Dumping stack trace to 
xterm.exe.stackdump
       0 [main] xterm 576 fork: child -1 - died waiting for longjmp 
before initialization, retry 0, exit code 0x600, errno 11
xterm: Error 29, errno 11: Resource temporarily unavailable
Reason: spawn: fork() failed

xterm.exe.stackdump:
------------------
Exception: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION at eip=61020337
eax=00D900F8 ebx=61234600 ecx=76B30D06 edx=003C20F0 esi=00000000 
edi=0028F9F8
ebp=61020A80 esp=0028C7C8 program=E, pid 4908, thread main
cs=0023 ds=002B es=002B fs=0053 gs=002B ss=002B
Stack trace:
Frame     Function  Args
End of stack trace

screen output:
------------------
$ /usr/bin/xterm
       1 [main] xterm 3164 exception::handle: Exception: 
STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
     227 [main] xterm 3164 open_stackdumpfile: Dumping stack trace to 
xterm.exe.stackdump
       1 [main] xterm 3364 exception::handle: Exception: 
STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
     203 [main] xterm 3364 open_stackdumpfile: Dumping stack trace to 
xterm.exe.stackdump
       1 [main] xterm 4024 exception::handle: Exception: 
STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
     401 [main] xterm 4024 open_stackdumpfile: Dumping stack trace to 
xterm.exe.stackdump
       1 [main] xterm 3944 exception::handle: Exception: 
STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
     393 [main] xterm 3944 open_stackdumpfile: Dumping stack trace to 
xterm.exe.stackdump

xterm.exe.stackdump:
------------------
Exception: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION at eip=61020337
eax=00D900F8 ebx=61234600 ecx=76B30D06 edx=003C20F0 esi=00000000 
edi=0028F9F8
ebp=61020A80 esp=0028C7C8 program=E, pid 4908, thread main
cs=0023 ds=002B es=002B fs=0053 gs=002B ss=002B
Stack trace:
Frame     Function  Args
End of stack trace

screen output:
------------------
$ /usr/bin/xterm
       1 [main] xterm 3160 exception::handle: Exception: 
STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
     244 [main] xterm 3160 open_stackdumpfile: Dumping stack trace to 
xterm.exe.stackdump
       0 [main] xterm 3124 child_copy: linked dll data write copy 
failed, 0x32C000..0x32C03C, done 0, windows pid 4596, Win32 error 487
xterm: Error 29, errno 11: Resource temporarily unavailable
Reason: spawn: fork() failed

xterm.exe.stackdump:
------------------
Exception: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION at eip=61020337
eax=00D900F8 ebx=61234600 ecx=76B30D06 edx=003C20F0 esi=00000000 
edi=0028F9F8
ebp=61020A80 esp=0028C7C8 program=E, pid 4908, thread main
cs=0023 ds=002B es=002B fs=0053 gs=002B ss=002B
Stack trace:
Frame     Function  Args
End of stack trace


In essence, I notice no difference with xterm behavior after applying 
the snapshot.
Is this a known condition with this OS?  Is there a fix available?

Thank you!
Ken


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -