X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_BJ,TW_YG
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Mark Geisert <mark AT maxrnd DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Problem with execution of binary file
Date:	Mon, 7 Nov 2011 19:25:58 +0000 (UTC)
Lines:	35
Message-ID:	<loom.20111107T201338-583@post.gmane.org>
References:	<1320659540 DOT 5480 DOT 243 DOT camel AT kare-desktop>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
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

Edvardsen KÃ¥re writes:
> The well working installation was kept on the HD in it's own renamed (C:
> \cygwin.good) folder when I installed the latest version. The
> installation went through like it was the first time I installed cygwin,
> I hope this is ok?

First, kindly <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PPIOSPE> keep this on the mailing
list and out of private email.  Thanks.

I've done similar in the past, and it seems to work OK as long as you stop *all*
Cygwin processes before switching directories like that.  Can't have a
background sshd running, for instance.

> Then, I installed my "problem software" on the latest
> version - which failed. I even rebuilt the "problem software" on the
> well working installation and it works perfectly. My experience is that
> I can swich between these two versions just by renaming the cygwin
> folder so I only have one C:\cygwin folder at the time (I rename the
> other to C:\cygwin.bad or good, depending on which one I run).
> 
> I've attached the objdump and cygcheck output from both the good and bad
> installations. Clearly, the bad objdump returns stuff that tells me the
> compilation of my binary did not turn out right in one case. Maybe one
> of you can see what's going wrong at some stage?

The first thing that jumps out is SizeOfUninitializedData is 949MB in the good
image but 3227MB (!) in the bad image.  Even on Windows 7 that you're running I
wonder if there's an OS or linker issue building an image with over 3GB of
uninitialized data.

The flip side of that is, why is that different in the two images if you're
using the same commands to build them?  I haven't yet diff'd the two cygchecks
you sent but maybe that'll lead somewhere.

..mark


--
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 -