X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s= default; b=ToQ3eZdKPwAj/3wFxJ6uPAnqNi8qYYz9dhhXwljpxeBrAXxTqx36G Qg1mAlYtzSZJtGijpG1P8DfLesZckvttGWrhykfD0Y5CCnG3cKAx9NCxbLTK9XUI nmyW62Bta8Q9i+Hkk6NoikRZlO3IiS4L1Ws7EDjhiwfpUwkv6KC1Hc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default; bh=Jrk30PikLxE+MnepzvNXTQXygiU=; b=R37GeAPNvK97BqbhzgpajaKyAte5 od/A6Q/3VyGwC+VjTRcPdfYS1QK6ZbSV7gWrcBsgJ0U1JltPCVT9YftDjeuNWuD1 gmvnjX/O+Vt8gqb+d53xJ5CmuR9dxbjGGHc2XP/DykjRhejgBv+70TBS3z7bVi/4 LB92la+keLa9Ako= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:02:11 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: 64-bit emacs crashes a lot Message-ID: <20130802080211.GA18054@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <51F3151D DOT 7040000 AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca> <51F33565 DOT 1090406 AT cornell DOT edu> <51F33F52 DOT 4060405 AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca> <51FB1D9E DOT 5090102 AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51FB1D9E.5090102@cs.utoronto.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) On Aug 1 22:46, Ryan Johnson wrote: > On 26/07/2013 11:32 PM, Ryan Johnson wrote: > >On 26/07/2013 10:50 PM, Ken Brown wrote: > >>On 7/26/2013 8:32 PM, Ryan Johnson wrote: > >>>Hi all, > >>> > >>>Running 64-bit cygwin 1.7.22(0.268/5/3), with emacs-nox 24.3-4 inside > >>>mintty 1.2-beta1-1, I keep getting seg faults and "Fatal error > >>>6: Aborted" > > > >>>It happens at strange times, invariably during I/O of some kind (either > >>>keyboard input or output from some compilation window); I don't get the > >>>impression it's fork-related. I don't know how to get a backtrace from > >>>emacs, given the way any exception or signal always loses the > >>>"userland" > >>>stack (suggestions welcome). > >>> > >>>Anyone else seeing this? > >> > >>This doesn't really answer your question since I don't use > >>emacs-nox, but I've been running 64-bit emacs-X11 and finding it > >>very stable. I typically keep it running for several days at a > >>time. > >> > >>You say you don't know how to get a backtrace from emacs. I > >>assume you've installed emacs-debuginfo and run emacs under gdb. > >>Are you saying you can never get a backtrace after it crashes? > >I do have the emacs-debuginfo. I meant that the stack dump didn't > >have any emacs frames in it (they were all cygwin1.dll), and my > >experience with cygwin/gdb is that once you've taken a signal or > >exception you lose the cygwin stack and just see a bunch of > >threads mucking around in various low-level Windows dlls. > > > >I have tried attaching gdb to emacs and setting a breakpoint on > >abort(), but it didn't catch anything yet. I'm also hampered by > >gdb constantly getting confused, breaking partway into emacs, and > >having to detach/reattach it. I've started a new thread for that > >issue. > > Here's a new one... I started a compilation, but before it actually > invoked the command it started pegging the CPU. After ^G^G^G, it > crashed with the following: > >Auto-save? (y or n) y > > 0 [main] emacs 5076 C:\cygwin64\bin\emacs-nox.exe: *** fatal > >error - Internal error: TP_NUM_W_BUFS too small 2268032 >= 10. That looks like a memory overwrite. 2268032 is 0x229b80, which looks suspiciously like a stack address. And the overwritten value is on the stack, too, well within the cygwin TLS area. If *this* value gets overwritten, the TLS is probbaly totally hosed at this point. There's just no way to infer the culprit from this limited info. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer 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