Re: Initialization problem

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Axel Schmidt (axel++at++artcom.de)
Wed, 24 Jul 1996 14:34:28 +0200

Remi Arnaud wrote:
>
> ...
>
> What kinda crash is it (Gfx or Core dump) ?
> Is it running 2.0 or 2.0.1 ?
> Is it happening only in IRISGL ? Only for INDIGO 2 ?
> if it's a core dump, can you mail me a stack trace ?
>

Hi Remi,

here are some additional informations about the
initialization problem.

I get a segmentation violation on all our machines.
Two examples are:

- Onyx, 4xR4400, RE2, IRIX 5.3, IRISGL and OpenGL

- Indy, IRIX 5.3 and 6.2 (o32 and n32), IRISGL and OpenGL

The version of Performer_dev is 2.0 on all plattforms.
Performer_eoe is 2.0 for IRIX 5.3 and 2.0.1 for IRIX 6.2.

The stack trace is allways the same for all machines:

Core from signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation violation
(dbx) where
> 0 pfBuffer::pf_destroyMem(pfMemory*)(0x1000a530, 0x18075d50, 0x5dc08040, 0x0) ["../../../lib/libpf/pfBuffer.C":1377, 0x5ccc464c]
   1 pfDBase(0x1000a530, 0x18075d50, 0x5dc08040, 0x0)
["../../../lib/libpf/pfProcess.C":2994, 0x5cd0d654]
   2 dbFunc(void*)(0x0, 0x18075d50, 0x5dc08040, 0x0) ["magic.c++":25,
0x402c68]
   3 mpDBase(void)(0x1000a530, 0x18075d50, 0x5dc08040, 0x0)
["../../../lib/libpf/pfProcess.C":3093, 0x5cd0da78]
   4 pfConfig(0x1000a530, 0x18040830, 0x1, 0x0)
["../../../lib/libpf/pfProcess.C":1705, 0x5cc9a99c]
   5 main(0x1000a530, 0x18075d50, 0x5dc08040, 0x0) ["magic.c++":44,
0x402d44]
   6 __start() ["crt1text.s":133, 0x4029fc]

Ciao Axel

--
Axel Schmidt      axel++at++artcom.de           fon +49-30-254 17 3
ART+COM Berlin    http://www.artcom.de/    fax +49-30-254 17 555
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
            Submissions:  info-performer++at++sgi.com
        Admin. requests:  info-performer-request++at++sgi.com

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:53:13 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.