[Bug 48274] wine-staging 4.21 fails to run 64-bit programs

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48274

--- Comment #18 from Paul Gofman <gofmanp at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Olivier F. R. Dierick from comment #16)
> Hello,
> 
> (In reply to Paul Gofman from comment #4)
> > Can you please confirm if just replacing <winebin>/lib64/wine/ntdll.so in
> > the "bad" build with the one from "good" build (with the refenced patches
> > reversed) fixes the issue? Could you please also attach that 64 bit ntdll.so
> > binary from your "bad" build and specify which exactly flags are used for
> > building?
> 
> Replacing ntdll.dll.so with "good" one results in a binary mismatch.
> I don't know how to avoid that.
> 

The "binary mismatch" log says that the server version is different. I might
not have been entirely clear, but by "good" build I meant the one which is the
same as "bad" but with the blamed patch not there. The blamed patch is not
changing the server version. But I don't think it makes much sense to spend
time getting back to that now, I asked for that before I saw any logs / failing
binaries and that was meant like overall "sanity" check to make sure we are not
missing something obvious.

> 
> It goes further and create a partial wineprefix but also fails.
> 
> I attached the requested log for "bad" and then "bad" + comment 9 patch.
> 

At this point I got a bit lost. Your initial log and binary (without my patch)
shows exactly the same problem as in MacOS build. Now with the patch applied it
gets a error much earlier, now without any crash or specific error indication.
I don't yet see how it is possible. E. g., if my patch would screw up stack /
arguments access I don't see how it would not be reproducible on my builds.
Please don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you necessarily mixed up
something here, but I lost the track with these results and am tempted to
suspect first that something is wrong with the patched build in some completely
new way.

The patch has now been included in Staging 5-0rc1. May I ask you to retest with
the clean 5.0rc1 build and prefix, and if it still doesn't work, attach the log
with +seh,+module,+thread,+process,+loaddll,+imports?

Thanks for testing this.

-- 
Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the
above URL to reply.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.