This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: Exception: STATUS_PRIVILEGED_INSTRUCTION occurs before main is executed.
- From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: "Bruce Adams [TEPG Sunbury]" <bruadams at tycoint dot com>
- Cc: cygwin at cygwin dot com, "Steven O'Brien" <steven dot obrien2 at ntlworld dot com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:12:03 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: RE: Exception: STATUS_PRIVILEGED_INSTRUCTION occurs before main is executed.
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Bruce Adams [TEPG Sunbury] wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Steven O'Brien [mailto:steven dot obrien2 at ntlworld dot com]
> >Sent: 05 March 2003 11:36
> >To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
> >Subject: Re: Exception: STATUS_PRIVILEGED_INSTRUCTION occurs
> >before main is executed.
> >Bruce Adams wrote:
> >> I have lately been having real problems with vanilla gcc 3.2
> >> generating executables that crash.
> >> The simplest way to reproduce the problem is to have a main function
> >> in a file with a .h of the same name as below.
> >Bruce I have tried your example code and it works fine for me:
> >Windows 2000 SP2, cygwin-1.3.20-1, gcc-3.2 20020927 (prerelease),
> >binutils-2.13.90 20021118.
> >Maybe the problem is in your cygwin installation?
> Thanks for trying it.
> Noramlly before I waste bandwidth here I do a clean install of the latest
> cygwin packages. I did one a short while ago and it didn't solve the
> Also I tried this on two machines with independent installs.
> However, I did one last night on the off chance that something might have
> updated that fixes it. Lo and behold my compiler works. My apologies for
> wasting bandwidth. As a bonus this also fixes my problem with gcj being
> unable to make standalone executables that work.
> Its probably not worth wasting further bandwidth to go into a root cause
> analysis but I'm sure that the previous installation included a corrupt gcc.
> I'm still curious what could have gone wrong with the installation, in
> case it happens again. I notice that in the intervening time we have
> moved from
> gcc version 3.2 20020818 (prerelease)
> gcc version 3.2 20020927 (prerelease)
> and the gcc package has moved from
> binutils 20021107-1
> gcc 3.2-1
> gcc-mingw 3.2-20020817-1
> binutils 20021117-1
> gcc 3.2-3
> gcc-mingw 20020817-5
> I guess I missed the announce somewhere.
> We're still using a "prerelease" whatever that means.
> My feeling is that 3.2-1 must have been corrupt rather than my
> I think it would be a great idea if the post setup phase did some
> basic configure style checking (assuming it doesn't already).
> Checking if the compiler gcc works.... No
> It would have saved me a couple of months of heartache.
> I seems very strange that nobody else spotted it though.
> How exactly could an installation become so corrupt that nothing short of
> a complete download (from a different mirror site) fixes it without the
> underlying package being in error?
> Bruce A.
I'm reasonably sure that if you create such a post-install script, it will
be at least thoughfully considered by the gcc maintainer... Especially if
we could get postinstall scripts to run in some more appropriate order...
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor at watson dot ibm dot com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html