X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: X-Sender: karlm30 AT hotmail DOT com In-Reply-To: <44D115C1.9030004@zedasoft.com> From: "Karl M" To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: 1.5.21-1 DLL Loading Problem Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:04:32 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: 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 Hi Rob... I got... $ ./run Foundation load failed: Permission denied HTH, ...Karl >From: Rob Hatcherson Subject: Re: 1.5.21-1 DLL Loading Problem >Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:14:41 -0500 > >All: > >This is a follow-up to a couple of posts I made 7/25,7/26/2006 regarding >DLL loading issues. cygcheck output was attached to the first of my two >posts. The cause of the problem in its original incarnation is still >undetermined, as it all seems to be happening upstream of main() where >things are slightly harder to nail down. > >I tried pushing the issue downstream of main() by loading one of the >questionable DLLs directly via dlopen(). This also failed, so I pared it >down to something small that still fails consistently (testcase1.tgz, >attached). While this isn't exactly the form of the problem I originally >described, it's still DLL related, and the behavior is similar. > >As indicated in my original post, this problem appears possibly related to >previously reported DLL loading issues. But... those are supposed to be >fixed in 1.5.21-1. > >I've run this app on two XP boxes and one Win2K box with the 1.5.21-1 >cygwin1.dll, and all failed with dlerror() reporting "permission denied". >FWIW on two of the machines I tried the 1.5.18-1 cygwin1.dll (same compiler >version), and it always worked. > >At first glance it would seem that "permission denied" is pointing to the >issue, but simple (and irrational) changes to the source cause the problem >to morph. For example, commenting out the #include of ReleasePool.h in >Object.cpp - which isn't strictly required in the test case Object.cpp but >was a leftover from the paring down process - caused the failure to be >reported as "bad address". Commenting out other things, such as some of >the static fields in the Object and/or ReleasePool classes, or the >#include's in Object.h, permit dlopen() to load the DLL successfully. >Also, removing the -g from CXXFLAGS results in a build that works. There >are other variations. > >At this point I'm looking for volunteers with the same cygwin/g++/etc... >versions to try to build and run this, to see if the failure is consistent, >or if we just happen to have a pile of confused machines at our office. To >run a) untar testcase1.tgz somewhere, b) make, c) ./run. It will either >say the DLL loaded OK, or give a reason why it didn't. > >Note that I have *not* yet tried gcc 3.4.4-2 as suggested earlier by Dave >Korn. I'll try to get to that shortly. Have also not yet tried the >current nightly build. > >For any of you who have a moment to help, feel free to my private email if >you prefer and I will be glad to summarize any findings in a future post to >keep the chatter on the list down. > >TIA for any help. > >Rob > ><< testcase1.tgz >> >-- >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/ -- 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/