| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
simon
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 270
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2024 7:25 pm Post subject: version 9.04 |
 |
|
| I have just loaded the various new DLLs and lib files for version 9.04. After recompiling my application, the program hangs at start up. It's about 160,000 lines of code, and I do not have the time to go through and try to find the problem. Based purely on the point at which the programme hangs, there may be a problem trying to load the background colour (%bg in ClearWin+). I have had to revert to version 9.00. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PaulLaidler
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8011
Location: Salford, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2024 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Simon
Have you used v9.04 of FTN95 with the new DLLs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simon
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 270
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2024 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Paul,
I believe so - I copied everything from the FTN95, DLL, and Plato links into the directory where I have FTN95 installed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8011
Location: Salford, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2024 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Simon
Is there no trace back to give a hint as to what went wrong?
Try using the debugging options and rebuild everything.
On the other hand, if you are happy using v9.0 then it won't be long before we issue a full release. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnCampbell
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 2580
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2024 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Paul,
I am typically using Plato for Ver 9.03.0.0 with options of /64 /check.
I build and run using a .bat file.
| Code: | set options=/64 /check
del manage_shares_error.log
now > manage_shares.log
ftn95 module_ver_g %options% >> manage_shares.log
ftn95 module_trans %options% >> manage_shares.log
...
ftn95 report_holding %options% >> manage_shares.log
del manage_shares.exe
slink64 @load.txt >> manage_shares.log
|
For example if I have a format / data mis-match (mix integer variable with real format) I don't get a traceback or tidy error report, but an access violation pop up.
| Code: | Silverfrost 64-bit exception report on E:\share_info\manage_shares.exe Mon Mar 16 00:51:42 1970
Access violation (c0000005) at address 7ffe5b0bda73
Within file CLEARWIN64.DLL
In _winio at address 9B4
In _system_exception_handler(<ptr>struct�_EXCEPTION_POINTERS) at address D95
Within file SALFLIBC64.DLL
in __system_exception_handler(<ptr>struct�_EXCEPTION_POINTERS) at address d95
Within file ntdll.dll
In RtlRaiseException at address 2A6
In KiUserExceptionDispatcher at address 2E
In ReportErrorString at address 49
Within file SALFLIBC64.DLL
in ReportErrorString@ at address 49
Within file CLEARWIN64.DLL
In _get_runerrs at address 24C
In _SetMaximumIOBufferSize at address 12D
In _SetMaximumIOBufferSize at address 71C3
RAX = 0000000000000000 RBX = 0000000000005753 RCX = 00000000024fc688 RDX = 000000000b1cca30
RBP = 00000000024fc619 RSI = 0000000000000000 RDI = 00000000ffffffff RSP = 00000000024fb810
R8 = 0000000000000001 R9 = 00000000ffffffff R10 = 0000000000007777 R11 = 00000000024fc558
R12 = ffffffffffffffff R13 = 0000000000000000 R14 = 00000000024fc5e0 R15 = 0000000000000000
7ffe5b0bda73) cmp_b [RAX+R15],RSI
|
Any ideas why the cryptic response ?
I may need a reset with a complete rebuild of Ver 9.04 ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8011
Location: Salford, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2024 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
John
I don't have any immediate insights into this failure.
I will probably need a reproducer of some kind.
I also don't know if v9.04 will help in this case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnCampbell
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 2580
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2024 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Paul,
This may be related to the FTN95 files are not all compatible, but this example produces a similar error report on my install.
| Code: | ! reproducer for formast data mismatch
character*20 :: warn_msg = ' warning of error'
character*11 :: date = '19/08/2024 '
integer :: lpart = 11, npart = 15
write ( *,61) warn_msg // date, &
' Change in last 60 days : check participating count', lpart, npart ! , holdings(ih)%avail_shares
61 format ( 1x,a,a,f8.0,3i8 )
end |
ftn95 trace_back /check /64 /link
| Code: | Silverfrost 64-bit exception report on E:\share_info\trace_back.exe Tue Mar 17 13:16:01 1970
Access violation (c0000005) at address 7ffe5b0bda73
Within file CLEARWIN64.DLL
In _winio at address 9B4
In _system_exception_handler(<ptr>struct�_EXCEPTION_POINTERS) at address D95
Within file SALFLIBC64.DLL
in __system_exception_handler(<ptr>struct�_EXCEPTION_POINTERS) at address d95
Within file ntdll.dll
In RtlRaiseException at address 2A6
In KiUserExceptionDispatcher at address 2E
In ReportErrorString at address 49
Within file SALFLIBC64.DLL
in ReportErrorString@ at address 49
Within file CLEARWIN64.DLL
In _get_runerrs at address 24C
In _SetMaximumIOBufferSize at address 12D
In _SetMaximumIOBufferSize at address 71C3
RAX = 0000000000000000 RBX = 0000000000005753 RCX = 00000000023ffa08 RDX = 000000000b65d280
RBP = 00000000023ff999 RSI = 0000000000000000 RDI = 00000000ffffffff RSP = 00000000023feb90
R8 = 0000000000000001 R9 = 00000000ffffffff R10 = 0000000000007777 R11 = 00000000023ff8d8
R12 = ffffffffffffffff R13 = 0000000000000000 R14 = 00000000023ff960 R15 = 0000000000000000
7ffe5b0bda73) cmp_b [RAX+R15],RSI
|
My ftn95 version 9.03.0.0 files are listed in http://forums.silverfrost.com/viewtopic.php?t=4978
This reproducer build does not select clearwin ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8011
Location: Salford, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2024 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
John
Your sample code works for me.
The traceback uses winio calls and that is where the failure occurs.
So there does appear to be some incompatibility in the v9.03 files that you are currently using.
The v9.04 files are for FTN95 and all the DLLs (SLINK64 ought to be OK but at worst I may need to upload a rebuild. Plato is largely independent.).
You could backup what you know works and try v9.04. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnCampbell
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 2580
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2024 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Paul,
I will generate a Ver 9.04, see how it goes and report back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnCampbell
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 2580
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2024 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Paul,
I downloaded the Ver 9.04 update files from the support links.
I updated 11 files.
I compiles and ran with "ftn95 /lgo" and got a similar resp;onse to ver 9.03, giving a Format mismatch report.
I compiles and ran with "ftn95 /64 /lgo" and got a different response !
First, I got the Win 10 virus warning, that the .exe had to be checked.
The second time, I did not get the virus warning, but then got the similar access violation report.
This report ( like Ver9.03 ) references ntdll.dll which is not in my silverfrost > FTN(%_9.04F directory.
I shall next download the latest full version available and report back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8011
Location: Salford, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2024 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It is being to look like we will need to provide a rebuilt SLINK64 with the v9.04 download. If anyone has successfully installed and used the v9.04 update then please let me know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnCampbell
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 2580
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2024 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Paul,
I have now downloaded the Ver 9.00 (Nov-23) ftn95_update.exe and have done a clean build. This version gives similar results to Ver 9.04.
I am using Windows 10 Pro, version 22H2
Using the small reproducer I posted yesterday, I tested both 32-bit and 64-bit.
FTN95 32-bit works giving format data mismatch reported in a pop-up box.
FTN95 /64 /LGO still gives an access violation error report, no traceback.
(I did not get the Microsoft Defender message)
| Code: | Silverfrost 64-bit exception report on E:\f95_test\lgotemp@.exe Wed Mar 25 03:18:45 1970
Access violation (c0000005) at address 7fffb53f5c93
Within file CLEARWIN64.DLL
In _winio at address 9EF
In _system_exception_handler(<ptr>struct�_EXCEPTION_POINTERS) at address D95
Within file SALFLIBC64.DLL
in __system_exception_handler(<ptr>struct�_EXCEPTION_POINTERS) at address d95
Within file ntdll.dll
In RtlRaiseException at address 2A6
In KiUserExceptionDispatcher at address 2E
In ReportErrorString at address 49
Within file SALFLIBC64.DLL
in ReportErrorString@ at address 49
Within file CLEARWIN64.DLL
In _get_runerrs at address 24C
In _SetMaximumIOBufferSize at address 12D
In _SetMaximumIOBufferSize at address 6F38
RAX = 0000000000000000 RBX = 00000000ffffffff RCX = 00000000023ff9c8 RDX = 000000000a7bbaf0
RBP = 00000000023ff959 RSI = 0000000000000000 RDI = ffffffffffffffff RSP = 00000000023fecd0
R8 = 0000000000000010 R9 = 0000000000000000 R10 = 0000000000007777 R11 = 00000000023ff898
R12 = 00000000023ff910 R13 = 0000000000000000 R14 = 00007fffb5350000 R15 = 0000000000000000
7fffb53f5c93) cmp_b [RAX+RSI],0
|
For my larger program ( that can run in 32-bit or 64-bit) I do note that the 64-bit traceback does go back 10 levels but remains in the Silverfrost libraries. Is this possibly the correct response ?
Unfortunately there is no indication of where the error originated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnCampbell
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 2580
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2024 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Paul,
I have made some progress with my larger program (that consists of 20 .f90 files)
I tested my small reproducer with "ftn95 trace_back /checkmate /64 /lgo"
When it reached the Format/data mismatch, it poped up in sdbg64 and gave the required info.
This outcome can be reproduced using:
ftn95 trace_back /checkmate /64 /link
sdbg64 trace_back
However, If I use two commands:
ftn95 trace_back /checkmate /64 /link
trace_back
This produces the Access violation report.
(this is the way I had typically tested programs)
So, now, rather than running the larger program, if I use "sdbg64 program" I get a better result.
In the build and run batch file, this now gives a stop at the correct place and gives the error information required.
But, just running the program that has been built with /64 /check does not give a clear error report. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8011
Location: Salford, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2024 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks John
I am assuming that it is a SLINK64 issue and will investigate further. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnCampbell
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 2580
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2024 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Paul,
Thanks for investigating this minor problem that has been annoying me for months.
You could confirm you have the same problem I am seeing by using the small reproducer above as trace_back.f90 and trying:
"ftn95 trace_back /64 /check /lgo" ( this should correctly report the error in SDBG64 )
"ftn95 trace_back /64 /check /link"
"sdbg64 trace_back" ( this should correctly report the error in SDBG64 )
"trace_back" ( this should report an access violation )
My test .bat file is (set_f95 selects F95 version in path):
| Code: | call set_f95 %1
del trace_back.exe
del trace_back.obj
ftn95 trace_back /64 /check /lgo
del trace_back.exe
del trace_back.obj
ftn95 trace_back /64 /check /link
trace_back
sdbg64 trace_back |
Two questions:
1) I normally use "trace_back > trace_back.log"
but changing to "sdbg64 trace_back > trace_back.log" does not appear to send standard output to trace_back.log. Is there a way to achieve this ?
2) I am puzzled by the appearence of "ntdll.dll" in the trace back report. Any idea what this is ?
My copies of Ver 9.00, 9.03 and 9.04 all have this problem.
Also versions 8.64, 8.74, 8.80, 8.92 and 8.97.2 reproduce the problem, so quite a long time
(unless my test approach is wrong. I open a new command window with each test ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
