[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: subversion 1.4.0 svn checkout crash

From: Samay <getafix123_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 2006-10-03 05:23:30 CEST


is error message similar to one here @ http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2006-09/1362.shtml

"The instruction at "0x00000000" referenced memory at "0x000000000". The memory could not be "read".

If yes, i guess points to neon 0.26.0 changes over 0.25.x.



  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Moisei Rabinovich
  To: John Peacock
  Cc: Ben Collins-Sussman ; dev@subversion.tigris.org
  Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:12 PM
  Subject: Re: subversion 1.4.0 svn checkout crash

  OP is probably me... just fyi - OP is doing his best to provide as much info as possible.

  Upgrade to 1.4.0 is *NOT* coincidental with some other change in the environment. I do not change two things at time.
  I downgraded the client back to 1.3.2 and I do not have a crash anymore.
  The fact 1.3.2 works well and the fact 1.4.0 works well from the command line, probably eliminates the "antivirus theory".
  I also tried to use ant 1.7.beta2 - with the exactly same result.
  I also tried to increase memory usage for ant using ANT_OPTS - with the exactly same result.

> 1) the OP didn't tell us what, if anything, the Windows error popup said;
  I will post the screenshot next time I reproduce it. This is usual windows error message telling "bad memory access on ... address"

> 2) the OP didn't tell us whether the failure is always on the same file or on
> different files;
  On different files but in the same folder.

> 3) the OP didn't tell us whether the subst'd drive is a local or networked drive;
  subst always mean local. network drive called "map-drive"

> 4) the OP didn't tell us whether the client box was running any antivirus
> software (or other software that hooks into the filesystem);
  yes, it runs semantec antivirus.

> 5) the OP didn't tell us whether this only happened only when two or more
> commits were made in quick succession, nor how large the working copy is.
  only one commit at time. no other activity on the server and on the client.
Received on Tue Oct 3 05:23:53 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.