From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 34479 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2016 10:19:15 -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 34448 invoked by uid 89); 22 Mar 2016 10:19:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*R:D*cygwin.com, Hx-spam-relays-external:ESMTPA X-HELO: out1-smtp.messagingengine.com Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (HELO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:19:12 +0000 Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 907B3207DF for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 06:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 22 Mar 2016 06:19:10 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.102] (host86-179-112-2.range86-179.btcentralplus.com [86.179.112.2]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 249FE68022A; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 06:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: X widget question To: Marco Atzeri , cygwin@cygwin.com References: <56EE7412.8080708@gmail.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Jon Turney Message-ID: <56F11C12.80900@dronecode.org.uk> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:19:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56EE7412.8080708@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg00465.txt.bz2 On 20/03/2016 09:57, Marco Atzeri wrote: > I have finally identified where ncview was > segfaulting on X86_64 > > The solution was to reverse the order of destruction > for a chain of widgets Nice to see that you have resolved this. It's not clear from what you write if you are sure there is an undocumented ordering constraint (which just happens to not crash on 32-bit), or if reversing the ordering just happens to make things not crash on 64-bit > The segfault was inside Xlib when managing the constraints. > > As the segfault did not happened on i686, is it possible > that is a race inside Xlib ? > I have not found in the X Documentation nothing about > requested order of widget destruction in this case. Possible, yes. It seems more likely that there is a documentation error, or a bug in handling widgets which share a constraint being destroyed out of order. I'm afraid finding someone who cares greatly about libXt will be hard, but do you think it would now be possible to craft a test case which demonstrates the problem? -- 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