Re: [Clax86list] Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- From: Charles Crayne <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:51:26 -0800
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:59:51 GMT
Frank Kotler <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A preliminary analysis of your "Fasm" executable shows
that where we should be in CONV_I64TOBUF, we're in a block of
zeros... Go boom!
Yes, I get the same results on my system, including getting the correct
results after local linking. The key to the is almost certainly the
12923 build, which neither of us has, nor knows where to find. Perhaps
Randy put up that build, found a problem with it, and reverted to 12922
-- and David was unlucky enough to download during that window.
--
Chuck
http://www.pacificsites.com/~ccrayne/charles.html
.
- References:
- Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- From: DaveR
- Re: Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- From: nbaker2328
- Re: Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- From: DaveR
- Re: Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- From: nbaker2328
- Re: Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: [Clax86list] Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- From: Charles Crayne
- Re: Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- From: DaveR
- Re: [Clax86list] Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- From: Charles Crayne
- Re: Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- From: DaveR
- Re: Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- From: DaveR
- Re: Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- From: Frank Kotler
- Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- Prev by Date: Re: Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- Next by Date: Re: Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- Previous by thread: Re: Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- Next by thread: Re: Seg fault with hla 1.99 on Fedora 8 linux
- Index(es):