We need an iBrowse replacement for 68k!!!

[matthey]

OK, that should be fixed in the new build I've just put up.

Same result here also, It still has the hit in AddTail() from RectFill() and then NetSurf is unresponsive.

[wawrzon]

strangely under uae muforce doesnt detect any hits (mmu on, jit disabled). probably proves again that testing on real hw is more reliable. must check with my a4k again.

[matthey]

strangely under uae muforce doesnt detect any hits (mmu on, jit disabled). probably proves again that testing on real hw is more reliable. must check with my a4k again.

MuGuardianAngel is munging memory and setting up memory allocation detection walls here resulting in ABADF00D. I may even have increased the defaults.

Here is the script I have been using:

Code: [Select]


Run >NIL: <NIL: C/MuForce AREGCHECK DREGCHECK STACKCHECK STACKLINES=3 DISPC DISRANGE=64 FILE=VMEM:MuHits.txt BUFFERSIZE=100000
Wait 3
Run >NIL: <NIL: C/MuGuardianAngel TOMUFORCE SHOWHUNK NAMETAG DISPC DISRANGE=128 STACKCHECK SHOWSTACK STACKLINES=3 AREGCHECK DREGCHECK PRESIZE=64 POSTSIZE=64 DUMPWALL CONSISTENCY
endcli >NIL:


[wawrzon]

ah, you have guardian angel turned on as well, just checked that i have muforce turned on as default also on my a4k.

edit: mm. still not catching anything..

[itix]

ah, you have guardian angel turned on as well, just checked that i have muforce turned on as default also on my a4k.

edit: mm. still not catching anything..

Detecting hits with Enforcer, MuForce, GuardianAngel and any similar tool is matter of good luck. MuForce only detects illegal memory accesses to unused address space. GuardianAngel detects illegal memory accesses to unused memory but if your memory is heavily used by other applications it detects nothing.

[matthey]

Detecting hits with Enforcer, MuForce, GuardianAngel and any similar tool is matter of good luck. MuForce only detects illegal memory accesses to unused address space. GuardianAngel detects illegal memory accesses to unused memory but if your memory is heavily used by other applications it detects nothing.

So less is more, more or less? The most common hits are to the zero page which are not luck. A hit from using munged memory is also not luck if the munging number is chosen carefully like 0xABADF00D (the most significant bit is 1). This address is >2GB (or negative if using a two's complement signed number) which is highly unusual to be in use as regular memory on an Amiga anyway. Sure, there is some luck to picking up a random hit due to lack of memory protection but I believe this is a small minority of hits. The ABADF00D hit in NetSurf was detected 4 out of 4 times I tried to catch it by the way.

[chris]

Same result here also, It still has the hit in AddTail() from RectFill() and then NetSurf is unresponsive.

Hmm, try now.

[matthey]

Hmm, try now.

It still has the hit in the same location and then becomes unresponsive.

[wawrzon]

sry, im off limits for now, perhaps tomorrow, or the next week.

[chris]

It still has the hit in the same location and then becomes unresponsive.

I can't see what else could possibly be wrong, unless RectFill needs an AreaInfo buffer (I didn't think it did, but maybe that's changed between OS3 and 4).  Can you see what parameters are being used?

edit: actually I can prove whether it needs AreaInfo - can you try starting it up with direct_render:1 and see if it still crashes?

[matthey]

edit: actually I can prove whether it needs AreaInfo - can you try starting it up with direct_render:1 and see if it still crashes?

It works with direct_render:1 in Choices!

[chris]

It works with direct_render:1 in Choices!

A-ha!  Right, remove that and try the new version.

[matthey]

A-ha!  Right, remove that and try the new version.

It's still not working without direct_render:1 in Choices.

Edit: I just verified that the new version has a hit in the same place.

[wawrzon]

confirming working of the previous version with the above option on real hardware. cant edit the preferences though, the preferences window appears minimized and cannot be resized to access its gui.

[Heiroglyph]

I've been following along daily but had no time to actually look at it myself.

This can't seriously be how you intend to debug the whole application. It's just not viable.

This needs to be built with source level debugging one way or another.

Never in my professional life have I had these kinds of problems finding and fixing a bug with such obvious, repeatable symptoms. Those are the types of bugs I like to see assigned because they are so easily fixed. I faceplam at my carelessness, fix it, then move on.

My suggestion is still to get it building with VBCC so that you can use a source level debugger such as the one in SAS/C.

It couldn't take longer than debugging like this and the final result will be more reliable.

[wawrzon]

ive got a feeling too, there must be some simple method to find and fix those problems rather than going round in circles.