[comp.sys.apollo] What, no core dump!?

mark@intek01.uucp (Mark McWiggins) (12/08/90)

I've just started porting a package to the Apollo, and as often
occurs, I'm having a few problems.  Normally Unix speeds me over
the problems by giving me a core dump when I trash memory ...

But not on the Apollo!  I'm getting "Segmentation Violation" and
no core dump!  Is there something I have to configure to make this
happen?

Dbx also crashes when I try to run it.  Overall I'm not a happy camper.
Thanks in advance for any insight; I'm running 10.3 on a 3550.

-- 
Mark McWiggins			Integration Technologies, Inc. (Intek)
+1 206 455 9935			DISCLAIMER:  I could be wrong ...
1400 112th Ave SE #202		Bellevue WA  98004
mark@intek.com    		Ask me about C++!

chen@digital.sps.mot.com (12/08/90)

In article <1990Dec8.060517.11185@intek01.uucp> mark@intek01.uucp (Mark McWiggins) writes:
>I've just started porting a package to the Apollo, and as often
>occurs, I'm having a few problems.  Normally Unix speeds me over
>the problems by giving me a core dump when I trash memory ...

Should there be another Q&A entry for the normal Unix users about tb and
dde :-) ?

(private email about tb/dde is on its way to makr@intek01.uucp)

-- 
Jinfu Chen                  (602)898-5338 
Motorola, Inc.  SPS  Mesa, AZ
 ...uunet!motsps!digital!chen
chen@digital.sps.mot.com
CMS: RXFR30 at MESAVM
----------

hanche@imf.unit.no (Harald Hanche-Olsen) (12/10/90)

In article <4e790cf9.12c9a@digital.sps.mot.com> chen@digital.sps.mot.com writes:

   In article <1990Dec8.060517.11185@intek01.uucp> mark@intek01.uucp (Mark McWiggins) writes:
   >I've just started porting a package to the Apollo, and as often
   >occurs, I'm having a few problems.  Normally Unix speeds me over
   >the problems by giving me a core dump when I trash memory ...

   Should there be another Q&A entry for the normal Unix users about tb and
   dde :-) ?

Probably.  However, I have found that most of the time, when I really
really need a traceback, the program doesn't leave one.  (I have not
been able to figure out under what circumstances I get a traceback and
when not).  Is the analogous thing true under Unix, i.e., you don't
get a core dump when you most need it?  Just curious --

- Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche@imf.unit.no>
  Division of Mathematical Sciences
  The Norwegian Institute of Technology
  N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY

herb@blender.uucp (Herb Peyerl) (12/10/90)

hanche@imf.unit.no (Harald Hanche-Olsen) writes:
>really need a traceback, the program doesn't leave one.  (I have not
>been able to figure out under what circumstances I get a traceback and

I've found that I never get a traceback when my program for some
reason scribbles all over my stack space.  Typically, whenever you
see:

'Unable to unwind stack due to invalid stack frame' 

you don't get a traceback.   After scribbling all over the stack, I
don't blame it either.  

What really gets me is lately, I've been working on a TCP client/server
thingamajig and after a couple hundred trials of my program, the node
seems to act odd (some shells hang, others are normal).  After doing 
a 'dspst', I show a negative null-process.

Too wierd..

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: herb@blender.UUCP   || #define Janitor Administrator
ICBM: 51 03 N / 114 05 W  || Apollo System_Janitor, Novatel Communications
"I spilled spot remover on my dog and now he's gone..." <Steven Wright>

chen@digital.sps.mot.com (Jinfu Chen) (12/11/90)

In article <HANCHE.90Dec9171511@hufsa.imf.unit.no> hanche@imf.unit.no (Harald Hanche-Olsen) writes:
>  (I have not
>been able to figure out under what circumstances I get a traceback and
>when not).

Sometimes tb may tell you no traceback for *current* process. You could
try to use tb -l or tb -all. Also you could force the program to log
information into `node_data/system_logs/proc_dump, see abort(3).

I haven't seen any occasion that tb doesn't log information when a program
crashes. However, I don't write programs for living :-)

krowitz@RICHTER.MIT.EDU (David Krowitz) (12/12/90)

Both tb -l and tb -all frequently tell us MIT nerds that
"no process matches your specification ...". SR9.x was
better at tracebacks. All /com/tb had to do was to examine
its current stack -- one of the nice features of running
inprocess.


 -- David Krowitz

krowitz@richter.mit.edu   (18.83.0.109)
krowitz%richter.mit.edu@eddie.mit.edu
krowitz%richter.mit.edu@mitvma.bitnet
(in order of decreasing preference)

nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (12/12/90)

In article <4e8455b1.1fe60@digital.sps.mot.com> chen@digital.sps.mot.com (Jinfu Chen) writes:
>I haven't seen any occasion that tb doesn't log information when a program
>crashes. However, I don't write programs for living :-)

Under certain circumstances this may happen, but it isn't too common.
Stack corruption or a full disk might not get logged (well, full disk
*certainly* wouldn't get logged :-).  Also the traceback doesn't
actually store the symbol information, it looks that up in the object.
So if you delete the program object the traceback is no longer useful.

All in all though I prefer tb to core dumps most of the time, the other
10% are a pain though.
-- 
Alphalpha Software, Inc.	|	motif-request@alphalpha.com
nazgul@alphalpha.com		|-----------------------------------
617/646-7703 (voice/fax)	|	Proline BBS: 617/641-3722

I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.

rtaylor@tron.UUCP (Randy Taylor) (12/15/90)

In article <9012111713.AA04603@richter.mit.edu> krowitz@RICHTER.MIT.EDU (David Krowitz) writes:
>Both tb -l and tb -all frequently tell us MIT nerds that
>"no process matches your specification ...". SR9.x was
>better at tracebacks. All /com/tb had to do was to examine
>its current stack -- one of the nice features of running
>inprocess.
>
>
> -- David Krowitz
>
>krowitz@richter.mit.edu   (18.83.0.109)
>krowitz%richter.mit.edu@eddie.mit.edu
>krowitz%richter.mit.edu@mitvma.bitnet
>(in order of decreasing preference)

You can get a crashed process traceback if you do :

tb -c progname

and I think you can get it for a tb -c uid # if you remember to write it down
first :-) !

tb -c progname has worked for me many times.

Randy Taylor
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Electronic Systems Group
-- 
rtaylor@sky00.bwi.wec.com  from an Internet site (preferred) 
rtaylor@tron.bwi.wec.com   from an Internet site (alternate)

"...you know I have the greatest enthusiam for the mission." HAL 9000