From: Greg Geldorp <ggeld...@vmware.com> > From: Erich Hoover > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Greg Geldorp <ggeld...@vmware.com> wrote: > > > ... > > > Looking at http://test.winehq.org/data/tests/shdocvw:webbrowser.html, > > > the shdocvw:webbrowser test doesn't have a history of occasional > > > crashes. There are a few failures, but none of them are due to access > > > violations. Which kind of indicates that the crash is because of the > > > changes you made. > > > I know it sucks to investigate failures that don't repro consistently, > > > but I do think some more testing would be good here. Of course, if > > > there's any info you need about the VM just let me know. > > > > Well, I commandeered a XP SP3 box this morning and ran that exact same > > set of tests successfully 10,000 times. I don't have access to a Win7 > > box or I would have run the tests on that. Thoughts? > > I'll do a similar test on Win7 tomorrow and let you know the results.
I started by running your test binary 10,000 times on W7PROX64. Not a single crash, so that looked kind of promising. Just to be sure, I then ran the binary on a dual-core Win7 x64 machine (the W7PROX64 VM has only one core assigned to it). This resulted in an immediate crash. Tried a few more times, it crashed 9 out of 10 times. To make sure that these crashes are related to your patch, I ran the test without your patch on the same dual-core machine. First few tries didn't produce crashes, I then ran it in a loop 10,000 times. Not a single crash. So, it looks like your patch introduces some multi-threading issue. I haven't investigated further, perhaps I'll have some time over the weekend to dig a bit deeper. Greg.