Deadlock?

[Mike Hearn]

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:47:18 +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> I'm not sure I'll manage to do that. The problem happens so rarely, and 
> I'm working on other problems in the program, that I'm not sure the 
> added output is something I can do that over time. Not to mention that 
> when I exit the program with these settings, I get a long loop of:
> 0009:trace:seh:EXC_CallHandler calling handler at 0x66e5d029 
> code=c0000005 flags=10

Well c000005 is "access violation" iirc, so this is definately not normal
behaviour :)

> I'm not sure what seh does, but it's triggering other problems as well.

It just turns on exception tracing (seh == structured exception handling)

> I don't know of other causes for problems that only happen OCCASIONALLY. 
> Yes, it's a race.

Hehe, sorry :) Qualifying everything with a "maybe" is a bad habit of mine.

> How can I attach to two threads?

You don't, you attach to a process then pass the thread id to the "bt"
command, ie:

attach 0x0e (process id)
bt 0x9
bt 0x1 ... etc ....

> Wouldn't that cause it to bomb each and every time? Like I said before - 
> usually it works fine.

Yes, true.

> This program sets up tons of error handlers. Usually, however, they just 
> bring up a dialog that says "this program has crashed. Do you want us to 
> rerun it for you?". Another fine Microsoft invention.

Hmm, beats simply writing "Segmentation fault" into the ether, which is
the default linux behaviour when run from a gui :)
 
thanks -mike