Re: [PEDA] maybe related to ''Access violation'' problem
Just to drop something to a discussion about Access violation errors. I posted the problem on this forum some 2 weeks ago and received no answer. I also reported this to Protel - no answer too. I paste here a part of that post: -- Issue : Linking a document file which is within another database When the user adds a link to an external file in a normal way - from the menu File\Link Document or by right-clicking in Design Window (when in Folder View) the dialog window appears - it seems impossible to point to a file being inside another database. But, when the user opens two databases, picks up a file from one ddb, drags and drops it into another's ddb window, he may move, copy or LINK that file. In that way a link to a file which is within another ddb is established. I tried to use such links pointing to documents of several document-types: Schematic, PCB, Text, Autocad Drawing and also (just curiosity) Schematic Library, and it worked well for all of them EXCEPT ONE - Schematic document. Trying to open one I get a message: Access violation at address ... in module VCL50.BPL --- I checked it on 3 computers: two running under WinNT4, thirtd - Windows98, all have Protel99SE + SP6 installed (the other software is obviously different) - the same results, only links to schematics do no open and cause access violation errors. And I had 2 questions: 1. Is it possible to link schematic document which resides within another ddb? 2. Is it safe using such links (DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE documents linked that way)? But a few days after posting this query I tried it again on another computer and guess what - everything worked very well. What's interesting is the fact that this computer has exactly the same hardware as one of the other computers I had checked before. And both are running under WinNT4, both have the same service packs for NT and Protel. Just the other software is different. Any guess, any idea, any comments? Thanks in advance for any feedback. Wojciech Oborski * Tracking #: 061A5F1E5F84CC4687DFD05306EE9E60D84A56C8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] maybe related to ''Access violation'' problem
I think that the best way to sort it out would be to methodically go through the debugging process of starting clean and then adding back elements one at a time until it fails. If it fails with a fresh install of the OS and only Protel installed then you will need to start looking at hardware/driver issues. John Williams - Original Message - From: Dennis Saputelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 2:57 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] maybe related to ''Access violation'' problem i appreciate your response i also see a ODBCji32.dll, know anything about that? no virus checker already went thru uninstall/ install i haven't (yet) deleted/replaced the *99se* files, i guess that is next as i reported i don't get any error messages to repeat the problem when closing a DDB when several DDBs are open then the whole Protel session disappears and any DDBs with unsaved changes lose the changes i have not gotten file corruption or lost files, only work the machine is pretty young, i hate to reinstall the OS and all the apps do you think it could be a hardware (motherbd) problem? all the other apps seem ok * Tracking #: 8FEB34C9DBEE4F4E9F74F5751E23FB5DCB07638F * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] maybe related to ''Access violation'' problem
all this time and i never noticed or used Link document looks useful i'll watch out for the schem issue Dennis Saputelli Wojciech Oborski wrote: Just to drop something to a discussion about Access violation errors. I posted the problem on this forum some 2 weeks ago and received no answer. I also reported this to Protel - no answer too. I paste here a part of that post: -- Issue : Linking a document file which is within another database When the user adds a link to an external file in a normal way - from the menu File\Link Document or by right-clicking in Design Window (when in Folder View) the dialog window appears - it seems impossible to point to a file being inside another database. But, when the user opens two databases, picks up a file from one ddb, drags and drops it into another's ddb window, he may move, copy or LINK that file. In that way a link to a file which is within another ddb is established. I tried to use such links pointing to documents of several document-types: Schematic, PCB, Text, Autocad Drawing and also (just curiosity) Schematic Library, and it worked well for all of them EXCEPT ONE - Schematic document. Trying to open one I get a message: Access violation at address ... in module VCL50.BPL --- I checked it on 3 computers: two running under WinNT4, thirtd - Windows98, all have Protel99SE + SP6 installed (the other software is obviously different) - the same results, only links to schematics do no open and cause access violation errors. And I had 2 questions: 1. Is it possible to link schematic document which resides within another ddb? 2. Is it safe using such links (DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE documents linked that way)? But a few days after posting this query I tried it again on another computer and guess what - everything worked very well. What's interesting is the fact that this computer has exactly the same hardware as one of the other computers I had checked before. And both are running under WinNT4, both have the same service packs for NT and Protel. Just the other software is different. Any guess, any idea, any comments? Thanks in advance for any feedback. Wojciech Oborski * Tracking #: 061A5F1E5F84CC4687DFD05306EE9E60D84A56C8 * -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] maybe related to ''Access violation'' problem
I think the only way to see something useful happen with ANY bug report for P99SE is to have a DXP beta tester try the same thing and see if it happens there. This of course is not the DXP group, but I'm SURE there are several members on this list beta testing DXP. If a P99SE bug can be duplicated in DXP, it can be reported and fixed there. I'm sure we will not see SP7 now that DXP is imminent. Tony -Original Message- From: Wojciech Oborski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 3:57 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] maybe related to ''Access violation'' problem Just to drop something to a discussion about Access violation errors. I posted the problem on this forum some 2 weeks ago and received no answer. I also reported this to Protel - no answer too. I paste here a part of that post: -- Issue : Linking a document file which is within another database When the user adds a link to an external file in a normal way - from the menu File\Link Document or by right-clicking in Design Window (when in Folder View) the dialog window appears - it seems impossible to point to a file being inside another database. But, when the user opens two databases, picks up a file from one ddb, drags and drops it into another's ddb window, he may move, copy or LINK that file. In that way a link to a file which is within another ddb is established. I tried to use such links pointing to documents of several document-types: Schematic, PCB, Text, Autocad Drawing and also (just curiosity) Schematic Library, and it worked well for all of them EXCEPT ONE - Schematic document. Trying to open one I get a message: Access violation at address ... in module VCL50.BPL -- - I checked it on 3 computers: two running under WinNT4, thirtd - Windows98, all have Protel99SE + SP6 installed (the other software is obviously different) - the same results, only links to schematics do no open and cause access violation errors. And I had 2 questions: 1. Is it possible to link schematic document which resides within another ddb? 2. Is it safe using such links (DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE documents linked that way)? But a few days after posting this query I tried it again on another computer and guess what - everything worked very well. What's interesting is the fact that this computer has exactly the same hardware as one of the other computers I had checked before. And both are running under WinNT4, both have the same service packs for NT and Protel. Just the other software is different. Any guess, any idea, any comments? Thanks in advance for any feedback. Wojciech Oborski * Tracking #: 061A5F1E5F84CC4687DFD05306EE9E60D84A56C8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] maybe related to ''Access violation'' problem
John Williams, here is what i have done so far (no joy) i searched my machines for ODBCjt32.dll i found several different file dates but only 2 different versions under the properties tab a binary compare showed ones with same version number to be identical machine P4 is working correctly with ODBCjt32.dll Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 5:00:00 AM 4.0.6019.0 Microsoft ODBC Desktop Driver Pack 3.5 machine G5 is also working correctly with 4.0.4403.2 size same date is 6/14/2001 mahine G6 which is the problem machine has 4.0.6019.0 so i put 4.0.4403.2 on machine G6 i also deleted ODBCjt32.dll from \dllcache folder so that the file only resided in \system32 i rebooted and verified the older version was still in place we worked for a while and the problem has recurred exactly the same with either of these files so now i am at a dead end what to do? any ideas? i have also sent all of this to protel Dennis Saputelli John Williams wrote: What is the version number/date of the file: ODBCjt32.dll in your \Winnt\System32 directory? In general, program installers will only replace files that are older than the ones they are trying to install. If Protel 99SE requires an older version of this file (or other related files), you would need to manually replace the file with the older version. Of course, this could be dangerous if other applications or other components of the OS require the newer version (affectionately known as dll Hell). John Williams - Original Message - From: Dennis Saputelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] maybe related to ''Access violation'' problem ... i suspected an MDAC issue (from reading this list) but the driver from MS won't install because it says the one we have is already current ... any ideas? Dennis Saputelli * Tracking #: 2018994D42706A46B884955C255B90CC9AFA2359 * -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] maybe related to ''Access violation'' problem
At this point, I would replace the ODBCjt32.dll file on G6 to restore it to its original condition. To eliminate the possibility that you have corrupted the Protel installation itself: Disable your virus checker. Uninstall any Protel service packs using the Add/Remove Programs control panel. Uninstall Protel itself using the Add/Remove Programs control panel. Do a search in G6's \WINNT directory for all files that contain 99SE (set the search string to *99SE*). Move all found files to a backup directory somewhere. They contain all system configuration and user settings for Protel. Corruption/inconsistencies in these files can easily cause Protel to crash. Make sure that they are all removed from the \WINNT directory. Reinstall Protel and service pack 6. Do not add any third party servers. Run Protel and retest using only Protel example DDB files. Do not load any of your own files. If no access violation, try testing with your own DDB files. If still no access violation, restore the *99SE* files that you saved and test again. If you get an access violation with a clean install of Protel, you might be better off in the long run if you do a clean install of Win2K with sp2. It is definitely possible to get incompatible system files over time caused by applications that attempt to upgrade selected system files for their own use. I recently installed the demo version of Protel 99SE on a laptop with Win2k and it would consistently cause an access violation on exit. Uninstalling and reinstalling Protel (including deletion of all .ini files) did not resolve the problem. Clean install of Win2K did solve it. John Williams - Original Message - From: Dennis Saputelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 12:51 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] maybe related to ''Access violation'' problem John Williams, here is what i have done so far (no joy) i searched my machines for ODBCjt32.dll i found several different file dates but only 2 different versions under the properties tab a binary compare showed ones with same version number to be identical machine P4 is working correctly with ODBCjt32.dll Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 5:00:00 AM 4.0.6019.0 Microsoft ODBC Desktop Driver Pack 3.5 machine G5 is also working correctly with 4.0.4403.2 size same date is 6/14/2001 mahine G6 which is the problem machine has 4.0.6019.0 so i put 4.0.4403.2 on machine G6 i also deleted ODBCjt32.dll from \dllcache folder so that the file only resided in \system32 i rebooted and verified the older version was still in place we worked for a while and the problem has recurred exactly the same with either of these files so now i am at a dead end what to do? any ideas? i have also sent all of this to protel * Tracking #: 04C538F9B333D3498027E08E56DF9CAD8A5732CE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] maybe related to ''Access violation'' problem
i appreciate your response i also see a ODBCji32.dll, know anything about that? no virus checker already went thru uninstall/ install i haven't (yet) deleted/replaced the *99se* files, i guess that is next as i reported i don't get any error messages to repeat the problem when closing a DDB when several DDBs are open then the whole Protel session disappears and any DDBs with unsaved changes lose the changes i have not gotten file corruption or lost files, only work the machine is pretty young, i hate to reinstall the OS and all the apps do you think it could be a hardware (motherbd) problem? all the other apps seem ok Dennis Saputelli John Williams wrote: At this point, I would replace the ODBCjt32.dll file on G6 to restore it to its original condition. To eliminate the possibility that you have corrupted the Protel installation itself: Disable your virus checker. Uninstall any Protel service packs using the Add/Remove Programs control panel. Uninstall Protel itself using the Add/Remove Programs control panel. Do a search in G6's \WINNT directory for all files that contain 99SE (set the search string to *99SE*). Move all found files to a backup directory somewhere. They contain all system configuration and user settings for Protel. Corruption/inconsistencies in these files can easily cause Protel to crash. Make sure that they are all removed from the \WINNT directory. Reinstall Protel and service pack 6. Do not add any third party servers. Run Protel and retest using only Protel example DDB files. Do not load any of your own files. If no access violation, try testing with your own DDB files. If still no access violation, restore the *99SE* files that you saved and test again. If you get an access violation with a clean install of Protel, you might be better off in the long run if you do a clean install of Win2K with sp2. It is definitely possible to get incompatible system files over time caused by applications that attempt to upgrade selected system files for their own use. I recently installed the demo version of Protel 99SE on a laptop with Win2k and it would consistently cause an access violation on exit. Uninstalling and reinstalling Protel (including deletion of all .ini files) did not resolve the problem. Clean install of Win2K did solve it. John Williams - Original Message - From: Dennis Saputelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 12:51 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] maybe related to ''Access violation'' problem John Williams, here is what i have done so far (no joy) i searched my machines for ODBCjt32.dll i found several different file dates but only 2 different versions under the properties tab a binary compare showed ones with same version number to be identical machine P4 is working correctly with ODBCjt32.dll Tuesday, May 08, 2001, 5:00:00 AM 4.0.6019.0 Microsoft ODBC Desktop Driver Pack 3.5 machine G5 is also working correctly with 4.0.4403.2 size same date is 6/14/2001 mahine G6 which is the problem machine has 4.0.6019.0 so i put 4.0.4403.2 on machine G6 i also deleted ODBCjt32.dll from \dllcache folder so that the file only resided in \system32 i rebooted and verified the older version was still in place we worked for a while and the problem has recurred exactly the same with either of these files so now i am at a dead end what to do? any ideas? i have also sent all of this to protel * Tracking #: 04C538F9B333D3498027E08E56DF9CAD8A5732CE * -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] maybe related to ''Access violation'' problem
so here is a real and growing problem (bug?) for us (for the record (99SE SP6 Win2K Matrox G550 512M Ram) we recently got a new box, a 1.8G P4 or something like that the machine seems quite stable and happy and all of the software has been freshly installed and comparable to other machines here on that machine, where of course most of the work is done, the following rather serious problem is occurring: Open a DDB, do some work Open another DDB and do some work (2 is enough but also applies to more than 2 DDB's open) switch to one of the projects and save the work close that DDB POOF! the Protel session completely disappears and work in the unsaved DDB(s) is lost!!! This does not happen every time when closing DDB's but it happens a lot it does not happen on the other machines at all - ever the workaround for the moment is to be careful to save everything everywhere before closing any DDB then when the session disappears we just re-start Protel the machine and the program seem stable on restart there are no error message i suspected an MDAC issue (from reading this list) but the driver from MS won't install because it says the one we have is already current we wiped the program from \Program Files and re-installed (although we did not delete the ini files in \WINNT) no improvement we did a complete uninstall from Control Panel Add/Remove, service pack and all figuring that would remove all software components no improvement (again we left the ini's) it is hard to believe that the ini files are involved and i don't want to set those up again it's almost as if the machine is too fast and something is happening out of sequence there isn't much other fancy software installed or running, no anti-virus and as mentioned the other machines are setup substantially the same but they are a bit slower at 1.4G any ideas? Dennis Saputelli * Tracking #: 510F6E46881BBF40A2208C6623BCC80E8B131417 * -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] maybe related to ''Access violation'' problem
What is the version number/date of the file: ODBCjt32.dll in your \Winnt\System32 directory? In general, program installers will only replace files that are older than the ones they are trying to install. If Protel 99SE requires an older version of this file (or other related files), you would need to manually replace the file with the older version. Of course, this could be dangerous if other applications or other components of the OS require the newer version (affectionately known as dll Hell). John Williams - Original Message - From: Dennis Saputelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] maybe related to ''Access violation'' problem ... i suspected an MDAC issue (from reading this list) but the driver from MS won't install because it says the one we have is already current ... any ideas? Dennis Saputelli * Tracking #: 2018994D42706A46B884955C255B90CC9AFA2359 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
