> Pavel Troller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But now I'm unsure, maybe we are on a false track. I just examined +relay
> > output again and I've found that immediately after the No-exec message the
> > program seems to continue normally. The problem (exception loop in msvcrt)
> > occurs many thousands lines later. I'm attaching preceding cca 1500 lines
> > of the log.
>
> It sounds like the no-exec workaround worked fine, and that you have
> some other problem. What does a +seh trace look like?
>
Hi Alexandre!
+seh shows the following:
trace:seh:raise_exception code=c0000005 flags=0 addr=0x6d4d08b0
trace:seh:raise_exception info[0]=00000008
trace:seh:raise_exception info[1]=6d4d08b0
trace:seh:raise_exception eax=00000001 ebx=7fe02cd8 ecx=7fe02cd8 edx=00000003
esi=7fe02cd8 edi=6d4e0e90
trace:seh:raise_exception ebp=7fb2fd70 esp=7fb2fd68 cs=0023 ds=002b es=002b
fs=006b gs=0063 flags=00010293
trace:seh:call_stack_handlers calling handler at 0x401f00 code=c0000005 flags=0
trace:seh:_except_handler3 exception c0000005 flags=0 at 0x6d4d08b0
handler=0x401f00 0x7fb2fa44 0x7fb2f984 semi-stub
trace:seh:_except_handler3 filter = 0x401e62
trace:seh:_XcptFilter (-1073741819,0x7fb2f8c0)
trace:seh:_except_handler3 filter returned CONTINUE_SEARCH
trace:seh:_except_handler3 reached TRYLEVEL_END, returning
ExceptionContinueSearch
trace:seh:call_stack_handlers handler at 0x401f00 returned 1
trace:seh:call_stack_handlers calling handler at 0x7b82be80 code=c0000005
flags=0
fixme:seh:check_no_exec No-exec fault triggered at 0x6d4d08b0, enabling
work-around
trace:seh:call_stack_handlers handler at 0x7b82be80 returned 0
trace:seh:raise_exception code=c0000005 flags=0 addr=0x6d4db3ef
trace:seh:raise_exception info[0]=00000008
trace:seh:raise_exception info[1]=6d4db3ef
trace:seh:raise_exception eax=7fb2fb28 ebx=797f2e80 ecx=7fb2fbec edx=7fb2fcb0
esi=7fe02cd8 edi=6d4db3ef
trace:seh:raise_exception ebp=7fb2fb74 esp=7fb2faf8 cs=0023 ds=002b es=002b
fs=006b gs=0063 flags=00010246
trace:seh:call_stack_handlers calling handler at 0x6d4b4bba code=c0000005
flags=0
trace:seh:_except_handler3 exception c0000005 flags=0 at 0x6d4db3ef
handler=0x6d4b4bba 0x7fb2f7d4 0x7fb2f714 semi-stub
trace:seh:_except_handler3 filter = 0x6d469332
trace:seh:_except_handler3 filter returned CONTINUE_EXECUTION
trace:seh:call_stack_handlers handler at 0x6d4b4bba returned 0
trace:seh:raise_exception code=c0000005 flags=0 addr=0x6d4d5d7b
trace:seh:raise_exception info[0]=00000008
trace:seh:raise_exception info[1]=6d4d5d7b
trace:seh:raise_exception eax=7fb2fb28 ebx=797f2e80 ecx=7fb2fbec edx=7fb2fcb0
esi=7fe02cd8 edi=6d4db3ef
trace:seh:raise_exception ebp=7fb2fb74 esp=7fb2faf8 cs=0023 ds=002b es=002b
fs=006b gs=0063 flags=00010246
trace:seh:call_stack_handlers calling handler at 0x6d4b4bba code=c0000005
flags=0
trace:seh:_except_handler3 exception c0000005 flags=0 at 0x6d4d5d7b
handler=0x6d4b4bba 0x7fb2f7d4 0x7fb2f714 semi-stub
trace:seh:_except_handler3 filter = 0x6d469332
trace:seh:_except_handler3 filter returned CONTINUE_EXECUTION
trace:seh:call_stack_handlers handler at 0x6d4b4bba returned 0
It looks that the first exception is the No-exec, then there is one more lonely
one (at 0x6d4db3ef) and the third one (at 0x6d4d5d7b) is the first invocation
of the looping one - this one repeats in the log at the same address forever.
With regards, Pavel Troller
