Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "00004e00".
Did you mean:
00004000
2010 Aug 24
4
Debugging a STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
...9;ve pasted an example below. Any thoughts on where to go from here?
Code:
0009:trace:seh:raise_exception code=c0000005 flags=0 addr=0x51fde2 ip=0051fde2 tid=0009
0009:trace:seh:raise_exception info[0]=00000001
0009:trace:seh:raise_exception info[1]=0428e7b8
0009:trace:seh:raise_exception eax=00004e00 ebx=04280078 ecx=00024e56 edx=0000e740 esi=00000056 edi=0000000c
0009:trace:seh:raise_exception ebp=0032fcc0 esp=0032fcb4 cs=0023 ds=002b es=002b fs=0063 gs=006b flags=00210206
0009:trace:seh:call_vectored_handlers calling handler at 0x7e423680 code=c0000005 flags=0
0009:trace:seh:call_vectored_ha...
2007 Apr 30
0
[LLVMdev] Boostrap Failure -- Expected Differences?
...-000005fb l O .rodata 00000014 __FUNCTION__.20030
> +000005fb l O .rodata 00000014 __FUNCTION__.19945
> 00000000 l d .rodata 00000000
> 000003f0 l F .text 0000005e gt_ggc_ma_reg_known_value
> 00000014 l O .bss 00000004 reg_known_value
> @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
> 00004e00 l F .text 00000090 gt_pch_pa_alias_invariant
> 00000590 l F .text 00000026 insert_subset_children
> 000005e0 l F .text 00000216 find_base_decl
> -000003b8 l O .rodata 0000000f __FUNCTION__.20147
> +000003b8 l O .rodata 0000000f __FUNCTION__.20062
> 00000000 l...
2007 Apr 27
2
[LLVMdev] Boostrap Failure -- Expected Differences?
The saga continues.
I've been tracking the interface changes and merging them with
the refactoring work I'm doing. I got as far as building stage3
of llvm-gcc but the object files from stage2 and stage3 differ:
warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs
(Are the above two ok?)
The list below is clearly bad. I think it's every object file in
the