Gregory Shimansky wrote:
On Thursday 16 November 2006 02:28 Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I think I said I was going to look at it...

An FYI - it's demotivating for people that say they'll do something to
have someone else race and beat them to it...

I'm not mad, but wanted to let you know.

I considered these to be two separate problems. One is that launcher crashes in case of no arguments, another is when drlvm throws UnsatisfiedLinkError which means that it is actually running, in which case newPathToAdd should be initialized in the launcher (but is probably initialized in a wrong way).

Ah


I did not try to fix the second problem, I don't even know how to reproduce it because for me drlvm doesn't give these problems and I don't have gump installed to try to see what's happening when it is running in gump environment.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [x86_64] problem running DRLVM
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:16:10 +0300
From: Gregory Shimansky <    >
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Gregory Shimansky wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I've tried to run the VM launcher and I get:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~/src/harmony/drlvm/build/lnx_em64t_gcc_debug/deploy/jre/bin $ ./java
Harmony Java launcher
Apache Harmony Launcher : (c) Copyright 1991, 2006 The Apache Software
Foundation or its licensors, as applicable.
java [-vm:vmdll -vmdir:dir -D... [-X...]] [args]
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x00007fffffe8aff0 ***
Aborted

any idea?
I've reproduced the crash. It is not exactly drlvm fault. It looks like
harmony launcher crashes when it is ran without arguments. If you run
it with some arguments it should work, at least it does work for me.
yeah, it works. <scratch-head/>

you mean I'm the first one to run the launcher without parameters...
bizarre.
On 64-bit? :)  Probably.
I fixed the crash at 475483. It happened because of an uninitialized
variable which happened to be non-NULL on x86_64.

Reply via email to