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, 30 Jun 2005 10:58:18 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Mysterious random crashes with latest snapshots Message-ID: <20050630145818.GB23000@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 03:37:25PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > I think I remember noticing that backtracing across sigfe doesn't always >work too well. Then again, there could be a problem with the debug info: "doesn't always" == "never". >>#3 0x00435d27 in fhandler_pipe::get_guard () > >makes no sense. But I would imagine the peculiarity is down to sigfe; >it does something unexpected to the stack frame, that the debug info >doesn't reflect. No, it's due to the fact that 0x00435d27 is an address in the application and the application has no debugging symbols. >>In case you haven't noticed, I'm running a snapshot, which, IIUC, *is* >>a debug build. And that doesn't help much, as you can see. > >Debug yes; unoptimised, I think not, although we'd need cgf or cv to >confirm how the snapshot process works. The snapshots are unstripped. Otherwise, it is a normal build. 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/