X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:45:40 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: perl threads on 2008 R2 64bit = crash ( was: perl 5.10 threads 	on 1.5.25 = instant crash )
Message-ID: <20090715194539.GZ27613@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <8541BCA91FF64580AA7A8065FBF9C938 AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <39B3B148DA514671BB2E1AE46946169C AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <20090715000331 DOT GA5635 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <6D01817BC10A4430AFE7A590CC935C09 AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <20090715152139 DOT GA694 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4A5DFDDF DOT 2000904 AT gmail DOT com> <20090715162243 DOT GL14502 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4A5E0AB1 DOT 9020201 AT gmail DOT com> <20090715185636 DOT GA16211 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4A5E2ED6 DOT 3070502 AT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A5E2ED6.3070502@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-02-20)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT 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

On Jul 15 20:32, Dave Korn wrote:
>   Yes.  That's why I said "examine the SEH chain", not "look at the call
> stack".  I reckoned that doing so might provide any insight into why the
> myfault was not invoked.  For instance, you might see something hooked into
> the SEH chain ahead of Cygwin's handler and start to look at what it was and
> where it came from; and if not, you would be able to infer that the SEH chain
> was not being invoked and start looking at the various SEH security
> enhancements in recent windows versions and wondering which one might make it
> think it shouldn't call handlers from a non-registered stack-based SEH
> registration record.

I'm not opposed to get some help with this stuff...


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
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