Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 17:33:34 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: wait_subproc failures in 2002-Feb-10 snapshot
Message-ID: <20020217223334.GA17796@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20020214172938 DOT GA1960 AT hp DOT com> <20020214172843 DOT GA1576 AT redhat DOT com> <20020217213708 DOT GC672 AT hp DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20020217213708.GC672@hp.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 04:37:08PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:28:43PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:29:38PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
>> >Any ideas of how to debug this further would be greatly appreciated.
>> 
>> I assume that this wasn't an issue with the previous snapshot?
>
>I rolled back to previous snapshots.  Both the 2002/1/25 and 2002/1/28
>snapshot exhibit the following "sh.exe - Application Error":
>
>    The instruction at "0x610051b8" referenced memory at "0x0000b804".
>    The memory could not be "read".
>
>The "sh.exe" mentioned above is the one started by fetchmail to run
>procmail.
>
>Is there an easy way to map 0x610051b8 into a Cygwin DLL function name
>without rebuilding the snapshot with debug information?

No.  Sorry.

>I tried addr2line on the (stripped) snapshots but it was not helpful
>(as expected).
>
>Although the problem is manifesting itself differently in these earlier
>snapshots, I think that it is caused by the same root cause.  Is this a
>bad assumption?

I really don't know.  Possibly stepping back in time with the cvs update
-D option might be useful in tracking this down.

cgf