Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:42:38 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: SEGV in conv_path_list_buf_size with xemacs-21.5-b13 and cygwin-1.3.22-1 Message-ID: <20030605194238.GC18681@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <16092 DOT 62778 DOT 903944 DOT 717787 AT gargle DOT gargle DOT HOWL> <16094 DOT 27841 DOT 192212 DOT 543929 AT gargle DOT gargle DOT HOWL> <16095 DOT 39236 DOT 307680 DOT 938888 AT gargle DOT gargle DOT HOWL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16095.39236.307680.938888@gargle.gargle.HOWL> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 02:25:56PM -0500, Pete McCann wrote: >int __stdcall stat_worker (const char *name, struct __stat64 *buf, int nofollow, > path_conv *pc = NULL) __attribute__ ((regparm (3))); > >So, nofollow and pc should have both been 0 coming in (although I see >pc getting reset to &real_path). Is this a case of stack corruption >somewhere? Maybe. Do you see the same thing with non-failing cases, though. >Some bad interaction with the regparm() attribute? Unlikely. >Could the debugger be getting confused? Very likely. Are you building cygwin with just '-g' and not with '-O2 -g'? Adding optimization can certainly cause confusion. cgf -- 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/