Yes, call stack presents:
But it's inside BOINC API call...
0012ed40 004b8ed3 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 
ntdll!DbgBreakPoint+0x0

0012ed58 004e4f2c 00000000 0012ed88 0012ed78 004e4e53 
MB_6.10_win_SSE3_ATI_r103!_invalid_parameter_noinfo+0xc 
(f:\dd\vctools\crt_bld\self_x86\crt\src\invarg.c:125)

0012ed68 004e4e53 00000000 0012ed88 0012ed90 004e4dc3 
MB_6.10_win_SSE3_ATI_r103!std::_Vector_const_iterator<_BOINC_MESSAGEMONITORENTRY
 
*,std::allocator<_BOINC_MESSAGEMONITORENTRY *> >::operator+=+0x14 
(p:\bin\vs9\vc\include\vector:160)

0012ed78 004e4dc3 00000000 0012eda8 00000000 0170ff68 
MB_6.10_win_SSE3_ATI_r103!std::_Vector_iterator<_BOINC_THREADLISTENTRY 
*,std::allocator<_BOINC_THREADLISTENTRY *> >::operator+=+0x0 
(p:\bin\vs9\vc\include\vector:376)

0012ed90 004e48cd 0012eddc 00000000 00000000 005315c0 
MB_6.10_win_SSE3_ATI_r103!std::_Vector_iterator<_BOINC_MESSAGEMONITORENTRY 
*,std::allocator<_BOINC_MESSAGEMONITORENTRY *> >::operator++0xc 
(p:\bin\vs9\vc\include\vector:382)

0012edbc 004e477c 0012eddc 00000000 00000000 0012ee10 
MB_6.10_win_SSE3_ATI_r103!std::vector<_BOINC_THREADLISTENTRY 
*,std::allocator<_BOINC_THREADLISTENTRY *> >::insert+0x1b 
(p:\bin\vs9\vc\include\vector:878)

0012edf4 004ef52d 0012ee10 6a5888c6 001b9860 0012f078 
MB_6.10_win_SSE3_ATI_r103!std::vector<_BOINC_MESSAGEMONITORENTRY 
*,std::allocator<_BOINC_MESSAGEMONITORENTRY *> >::push_back+0x0 
(p:\bin\vs9\vc\include\vector:824)

0012f24c 004eb0d6 0012f6b0 00530a30 20202020 706f633c 
MB_6.10_win_SSE3_ATI_r103!COPROCS::parse+0x0 
(d:\r\seti6\boinc\lib\coproc.cpp:140)

0012f664 004e0762 0012f6b0 00000000 6a58806a 0042005c 
MB_6.10_win_SSE3_ATI_r103!HOST_INFO::parse+0x0 
(d:\r\seti6\boinc\lib\hostinfo.cpp:111)

0012fae0 004f151a 00525ed8 005300e8 00525ed8 00525e98 
MB_6.10_win_SSE3_ATI_r103!parse_init_data_file+0x0 
(d:\r\seti6\boinc\lib\app_ipc.cpp:297)

0012faf8 0040d74b 00525eb8 00525e98 0170f7b0 00000000 
MB_6.10_win_SSE3_ATI_r103!_boinc_parse_init_data_file+0x0 
(d:\r\seti6\boinc\lib\app_ipc.cpp:297)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rom Walton" <[email protected]>
To: "Raistmer" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 11:28 PM
Subject: RE: [boinc_dev] Incorrect function when running under BOINC


Well 0x80000003 is what error code is returned when an application
asserts, which is different than the original error code.

Both of these lines are generated by the C Runtime Library and should be
properly filled out by rebuilding the application in the debug
configuration.
ERROR: Invalid parameter detected in function (null). File: (null) Line:
0?
ERROR: Expression: (null)?

However if the app did assert and returned 0x80000003 it should have
also returned a crash report which should include the call stacks of all
the threads which should give you the same information that the two
ERROR lines above would give.

----- Rom

-----Original Message-----
From: Raistmer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 3:12 PM
To: Raistmer; Rom Walton; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] Incorrect function when running under BOINC

Now I advanced further and got error in BOINC function call:

Code:
    // Initialize BOINC
    //
fprintf(stderr,"before boinc_parse_init_data_file\n");
    boinc_parse_init_data_file();
fprintf(stderr,"before boinc_get_init_data\n");

STDERR:
<![CDATA[
<message>
????????? ?????? ??????????? (0x80000003) - exit code -2147483645
(0x80000003)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
after diagnstic init?
before boinc_parse_init_data_file?
ERROR: Invalid parameter detected in function (null). File: (null) Line:
0?
ERROR: Expression: (null)?

What  could be wrong there?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Raistmer" <[email protected]>
To: "Raistmer" <[email protected]>; "Rom Walton" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] Incorrect function when running under BOINC


> Well, i added few fprintfs just after init diagnostics, boinc init
call
> and so on.
> there is nothing in stderr again. Probably it means very first boinc
api
> call, init diagnostic, failed and caused exit(1) call. Any thoughts
why it
> could fail?
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Raistmer" <[email protected]>
> To: "Rom Walton" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 12:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] Incorrect function when running under BOINC
>
>
>> Thanks!
>> What I found:
>>
>> 0)
>>    if (err != CL_SUCCESS) {
>>        std::cerr << "ERROR: " <<  name << " (" << err << ")" <<
>> std::endl;
>>        exit(1);
>>    }
>> Not th case, no "ERROR" in stderr.
>> 1)
>>      fprintf(stderr, "bad arg: %s\n", argv[i]);
>>      usage();
>>      exit(1);
>> Not the case cause no "bad arg" in stderr
>>
>> 2)
>>    PowerSpectrum = (float*) calloc_a(NumPointsInChunk, sizeof(float),
>> MEM_ALIGN);
>>    if (PowerSpectrum == NULL) {
>>      printf("Could not allocate Power Spectrum array in
>> v_BaseLineSmooth()\n");
>>      exit(1);
>>    }
>>
>> can't say if  it's what I looking for cause additional output goes to

>> stdout
>> instead of stderr, need to rebuild to check...
>>
>> But if it's very place, why buffer allocation fails under BOINC while
it
>> goes OK w/o it?
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Rom Walton" <[email protected]>
>> To: "Raistmer" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:47 AM
>> Subject: RE: [boinc_dev] Incorrect function when running under BOINC
>>
>>
>> Search the source code of the app for exit(1) or exit(EXIT_FAILURE)
>>
>> ----- Rom
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected]
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Raistmer
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 3:41 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: [boinc_dev] Incorrect function when running under BOINC
>>
>> When running offline app works OK, but being launched by BOINC it
fails
>> with
>> "incorrect function exit code 0x1"
>> Stderr:
>> <stderr_out>
>> <![CDATA[
>> <message>
>> =ooo?y?  ??yu?o . (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1)
>> </message>
>> ]]>
>> </stderr_out>
>>
>> No additional info available.
>> Maybe there are some known possible reasons of such behavior? Someone
>> encountered such situation?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> boinc_dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
>> To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
>> (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> boinc_dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
>> To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
>> (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
boinc_dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
(near bottom of page) enter your email address.

Reply via email to