From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30033 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2014 15:31:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 29943 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jul 2014 15:31:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: smtpout15.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk Received: from smtpout15.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk (HELO smtpout15.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk) (65.20.0.135) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:31:25 +0000 X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A090203.53C7EC4A.011D,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0 X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=9/97,refid=2.7.2:2014.7.17.120321:17:9.975,ip=,rules=__MOZILLA_MSGID, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __HAS_FROM, __USER_AGENT, __MOZILLA_USER_AGENT, __MIME_VERSION, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __IN_REP_TO, __CT, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __TO_IN_SUBJECT, __ANY_URI, URI_ENDS_IN_HTML, __URI_NO_MAILTO, __URI_NO_WWW, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE, __FORWARDED_MSG, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, __URI_NS, HTML_00_01, HTML_00_10, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, TO_IN_SUBJECT, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown Received: from [192.168.1.93] (86.177.101.223) by smtpout15.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk (8.6.100.99.10223) (authenticated as jonturney@btinternet.com) id 53B8954C005C87FE for cygwin@cygwin.com; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:31:22 +0100 Message-ID: <53C7EC48.5060903@dronecode.org.uk> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:31:00 -0000 From: Jon TURNEY User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Core dump on 32-bit Cygwin if program calls dlopen References: <53C46ACD.5060601@cornell.edu> <20140715090259.GB20640@calimero.vinschen.de> <53C51460.5080805@cornell.edu> <20140715130829.GK10401@calimero.vinschen.de> <53C532D9.7050506@gmail.com> <20140715143915.GA8330@calimero.vinschen.de> <20140716070231.GA25020@calimero.vinschen.de> <53C6F68A.9000801@gmail.com> <20140717073734.GA15332@calimero.vinschen.de> In-Reply-To: <20140717073734.GA15332@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00193.txt.bz2 On 17/07/2014 08:37, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jul 17 06:02, JonY wrote: >> On 7/16/2014 15:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> On Jul 15 16:39, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>> On Jul 15 21:55, JonY wrote: >>>>> On 7/15/2014 21:08, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FWIW, the problem disappears if I revert gcc-core and libgcc1 to 4.8.2-2. >>>>>> >>>>>> JonY, do you have a chance to have a look into this issue? >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, I have been busy these few weeks, but I am well aware that there >>>>> is a problem with one of the libgcc changes, but has yet to investigate it. >>>>> >>>>> I believe Jon Turney has looked into it somewhat. I think this is the same or a similar problem to the one I reported at [1]. I also created a gcc bug [2], with a suggested patch. >>>> Sounds good. Thanks in advance. >>> >>> Yesterday I asked my collegues to take a stab at the issue and one of >>> them, DJ Delorie, came up with a libgcc patch already. It hasn't been >>> sent upstream yet. Can we give it a try, perhaps by creating a new >>> libgcc DLL, please? >> >> Thanks, I'll get to it this weekend, should I make the new gcc an >> experimental version? Or is just the libgcc binary required? > > It's the libgcc DLL which gives us grief, so a new libgcc package is > sufficent, afaics. We should check if this DLL fixes the problem and > then make it "curr" soon, I think. I briefly tested this other patch with my test case from the mail above, and it doesn't seem to help. On 15/07/2014 15:45, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > Is this essentially the same problem as described here? > > No, I think it is an unforeseen consequence of the patch [3] to fix that bug [4], which I believe is present in 4.8.3-1, introducing a new problem when an executable which doesn't depend on libgcc dlopen()s a dll which does. [1] https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2014-07/msg00083.html [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61752 [3] https://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2013-07/msg00528.html [4] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57982 -- 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