From: Joe F. <fl...@so...> - 2007-05-18 18:12:29
|
Does anyone have a newer version I can try, please? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $ touch --version touch (fileutils) 4.1 Written by Paul Rubin, Arnold Robbins, Jim Kingdon, David MacKenzie, and Randy Smith. Copyright (C) 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 03/16/2004 01:32 PM, 38,400 bytes, C:\msys\1.0\bin\touch.exe MD5: ed0419673b1a4b84eccd24a65d65234a SHA-1: a269f236efa7f096aaec62b551efa2e57fff84f1 touch.exe -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks! Joe |
From: Joel C. S. <joe...@gm...> - 2007-05-20 02:28:10
|
What invocation is causing the OS to crash? Are you "touch"ing system files, trying to create a file in your home directory, or what? --Joel |
From: Joe F. <fl...@so...> - 2007-05-21 12:45:44
|
Thanks for the response Joel. Just touching any file, any text file for example. It works correctly on my home computer but bombs on my work computer. MS "error signature": AppName: touch.exe AppVer: 0.0.0.0 ModName: ntdll.dll ModVer: 5.1.2600.2180 Offset: 00001230 I'm trying to find out what the difference is but have failed to find it yet. The touch.exe and msys-1.0.dll files are exactly the same (same MD5 and SHA-1 sigs). Arg.... Joe Joel C. Salomon wrote: > What invocation is causing the OS to crash? Are you "touch"ing system > files, trying to create a file in your home directory, or what? > > --Joel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > _______________________________________________ > Mingw-msys mailing list > Min...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-msys > > |
From: Joel C. S. <joe...@gm...> - 2007-05-21 18:58:18
|
On 5/21/07, Joe Flowers <fl...@so...> wrote: > Joel C. Salomon wrote: > > What invocation is causing the OS to crash? Are you "touch"ing system > > files, trying to create a file in your home directory, or what? > > Just touching any file, any text file for example. > > It works correctly on my home computer but bombs on my work computer. > > MS "error signature": > AppName: touch.exe AppVer: 0.0.0.0 ModName: ntdll.dll > ModVer: 5.1.2600.2180 Offset: 00001230 > > I'm trying to find out what the difference is but have failed to find it > yet. > The touch.exe and msys-1.0.dll files are exactly the same (same MD5 and > SHA-1 sigs). Any more details about the symptoms of the system crash? --Joel -- It reverses the normal flow of conversation. > What's wrong with top-posting? > > Top-posting. > > > What's the biggest scourge on plain text email discussions? |
From: Joe F. <fl...@so...> - 2007-05-21 19:27:49
|
Yeah Joel, thanks. For my machine at work, touch.exe does not work outside of MSYS either. At home, the exact same at-work MSYS directory structure works fine. I'm still investigating but it looks like they are more dependencies showing up in Dependency Walker (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256872) when I "profile" touch.exe on my work machine rather than my home machine - and I think that may be the key. There may be anti-virus hooks (real-time protection) or something like that that is causing the problem. I'll probably disable or un-install my anti-virus program at work and reboot to see if that will isolate the problem. Joe Joel C. Salomon wrote: > > Any more details about the symptoms of the system crash? > > --Joel > |
From: Joe F. <fl...@so...> - 2007-05-21 19:41:42
|
I hope this list let's through small attachments; I've attached to JPG images. They are output from Dependency Walker at home and at work, while profiling touch.exe. Notice the verifier.dll and the others below it in the "at-work" image. Joe Joe Flowers wrote: > Yeah Joel, thanks. For my machine at work, touch.exe does not work > outside of MSYS either. At home, the exact same at-work MSYS directory > structure works fine. > > I'm still investigating but it looks like they are more dependencies > showing up in Dependency Walker (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256872) > when I "profile" touch.exe on my work machine rather than my home > machine - and I think that may be the key. There may be anti-virus hooks > (real-time protection) or something like that that is causing the > problem. I'll probably disable or un-install my anti-virus program at > work and reboot to see if that will isolate the problem. > > Joe |
From: Joe F. <fl...@so...> - 2007-05-21 20:03:26
|
This fixed it: C:\WINNT\system32>ren vrfcore.dll vrfcore.dl- C:\WINNT\system32>ren vfbasics.dll vfbasics.dl- Joe Joe Flowers wrote: > I hope this list let's through small attachments; I've attached to JPG > images. > > They are output from Dependency Walker at home and at work, while > profiling touch.exe. > Notice the verifier.dll and the others below it in the "at-work" image. > > Joe > > > Joe Flowers wrote: >> Yeah Joel, thanks. For my machine at work, touch.exe does not work >> outside of MSYS either. At home, the exact same at-work MSYS directory >> structure works fine. >> >> I'm still investigating but it looks like they are more dependencies >> showing up in Dependency Walker >> (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256872) when I "profile" touch.exe on >> my work machine rather than my home machine - and I think that may be >> the key. There may be anti-virus hooks (real-time protection) or >> something like that that is causing the problem. I'll probably disable >> or un-install my anti-virus program at work and reboot to see if that >> will isolate the problem. >> >> Joe |
From: Joel C. S. <joe...@gm...> - 2007-05-21 20:10:00
|
On 5/21/07, Joe Flowers <fl...@so...> wrote: > This fixed it: > > C:\WINNT\system32>ren vrfcore.dll vrfcore.dl- > C:\WINNT\system32>ren vfbasics.dll vfbasics.dl- That this fix worked is almost as disturbing as the fact that touch was even able to cause a system crash. Where are these DLLs from? what are they for? <After asking Google> vfbasics.dll is part of Microsoft's "Application Verifier". There might be a log somewhere that may point out an actual bug in touch.exe. --Joel -- It reverses the normal flow of conversation. > What's wrong with top-posting? > > Top-posting. > > > What's the biggest scourge on plain text email discussions? |
From: Joe F. <fl...@so...> - 2007-05-21 20:18:44
|
Joel C. Salomon wrote: > <After asking Google> vfbasics.dll is part of Microsoft's "Application > Verifier". ... may point out an > actual bug in touch.exe. These were my thoughts exactly Joel. Joe |
From: Keith M. <kei...@to...> - 2007-05-22 09:31:02
|
Joel C. Salomon wrote: >> This fixed it: >> >> C:\WINNT\system32>ren vrfcore.dll vrfcore.dl- >> C:\WINNT\system32>ren vfbasics.dll vfbasics.dl- > > That this fix worked is almost as disturbing as the fact that touch > was even able to cause a system crash. Where are these DLLs from? > what are they for? > > <After asking Google> vfbasics.dll is part of Microsoft's "Application > Verifier". On what basis do Microsnot presume to "verify" applications which they neither provide, nor support? > There might be a log somewhere that may point out an actual bug > in touch.exe. While I don't rule out that possibility, I'd be more inclined to suspect a bug in the Microsnot rubbish. Regards, Keith. |
From: Joe F. <fl...@so...> - 2007-05-22 11:53:40
|
> On what basis do Microsnot presume to "verify" applications which they > neither provide, nor support? For example, it is possible for OS programs to tell if there is the tiniest buffer over-run, instead of letting some of them slip through. I have seen this in Netware. I assume MS is doing the same sort of thing here. |
From: Keith M. <kei...@to...> - 2007-05-22 14:25:43
|
Joe Flowers wrote, quoting me: >> On what basis do Microsnot presume to "verify" applications which >> they neither provide, nor support? > > For example, it is possible for OS programs to tell if there is the > tiniest buffer over-run, Well, `touch' is a simple enough program. On a cursory examination of the source, I can't see where any such flaw might creep in. You are welcome to look for yourself: http://mingw.cvs.sourceforge.net/mingw/msys/packages/coreutils/5.97/ If you can identify a bug, please submit a patch: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=2435&atid=302435 Regards, Keith. |
From: Georg N. <ge...@ro...> - 2007-05-22 20:35:04
Attachments:
PGP.sig
|
On May 22, 2007, at 7:53, Joe Flowers wrote: >> On what basis do Microsnot presume to "verify" applications which >> they >> neither provide, nor support? > > > For example, it is possible for OS programs to tell if there is the > tiniest buffer over-run, instead of letting some of them slip through. > I have seen this in Netware. I assume MS is doing the same sort of > thing > here. Your first sentence is not correct for many C programs. -g |
From: Keith M. <kei...@to...> - 2007-05-22 09:25:39
|
Joe Flowers wrote: > I hope this list let's through small attachments; I've attached to > JPG images. It does, but IIRC, they will not be stored in the list archives. Regards, Keith. |