I am running a VB6 application on Windows 2003 Server.
When I am running it, it is giving ;overflow6 error.
Can any one tell me why is so?
You are making a division and both num and denum are 0
You try to assign a bigger type to a smaller one (like Byte b = a Long value)
You multiply numbers and the result gets too big.
Check for divisions and if your data types are big enough to hold result of operations
Related
I'm running a 64-bit version of GhostScript (9.50) on 64-bit processor with 16gb of RAM under Windows 7.
GhostScript returns a random-ish error message (it will tell me that I have type error in the array command) when I try to allocate one too many arrays totaling more than 2 GBs of RAM.
To be clear, I am seeing how growth of the memory usage in Windows Task Monitor, not from within GhostScript
I'd like to know why this is so.
More importantly, I'd like to know if I can override this behavior.
Edit: This code produces the error --
/TL 25000 def
/TL- TL 1 sub def
/G TL array def
0 1 TL- { dup == flush G exch TL array put }for
The error looks like this: Here's the last bit of the messages I get
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
Unrecoverable error: typecheck in array
Operand stack: --nostringval-- ---
Begin offending input ---
/TL 25000 def /TL- TL 1 sub def /G TL array def 0 1 TL- { dup == flush G exch TL array put }for --- End offending input --- file offset = 0 gsapi_run_string_continue returns -20
The amount of RAM is almost certainly not the limiting factor, but it would help if you were to post the actual error message. It may be 'random-ish' to you, but it's meaningful to people who program in PostScript.
More than likely you've tripped over some other internal limit, for example the operand stack size but without seeing the PostScript program or the error message I cannot say any more than that. I can say that (64-bit) Ghostscript will happily address more than 2GB of RAM, I was running a file last week which had Ghostscript using 8.1GB.
Note that PostScript itself is basically a 32-bit language; while Ghostscript has extended many of the architectural limitations documented in the PostScript Language Reference Manual (such as 64K elements in arrays and strings) moving beyond 32-bit limits is essentially unspecified.
As to whether you can change the behaviour, that depends on exactly what the problem is, and I can't tell from what's here.
Edit
Here's a screenshot of Ghostscript running the test file to completion, along with the Task Manager display showing the amount of memory the process is using. Not shown is the vmstatus which I ran from the PostScript environment afterwards. This showed that Ghostscript thinks it's using 10,010,729,850 bytes form a maximum of 10,012,037,312. My calculator says that 9,562.8MB comes out at 10,027,322,572.4 bytes, so a pretty close match.
To answer the points in the comments this is (as you can probably tell) on a 64-bit Windows 10 installation with quite a lot of memory.
The difference is, almost certainly, something which has been fixed since the release of 9.52. The 9.52 64-bit binary does exit with a VMerror after (for me) 5360 iterations. Obviously trying to use vast amounts of PostScript memory (as opposed to, say, canvas memory) is not a common occurrence, not least because many PostScript interpreters simply won't allow it, so this doesn't get exercised much.
The Ghostscript Git repository is here if you want to go through the commits and try to figure out which one caused the change. You only have to go back to March this year, anything before about the 19th March would have been in 9.52.
Beyond simple curiosity, is there a reason to try and use up loads of memory in PostScript ?
I need a way to limit the amount of memory that a service may allocate in order to prevent the service from starving the system, similar to the way SQL Server allows you to set "Maximum server memory".
I know SetProcessWorkingSetSize doesn't do exactly what I want, but I'm trying to get it to behave the way that I believe it should. Regardless of the values that I use, my test app's working set is not limited. Further, if I call GetProcessWorkingSetSize immediately afterwards, the values returned are not what I previously specified. Here's the code used by my test app:
var
MinWorkingSet: SIZE_T;
MaxWorkingSet: SIZE_T;
begin
if not SetProcessWorkingSetSize(GetCurrentProcess(), 20, 12800 ) then
RaiseLastOSError();
if GetProcessWorkingSetSize(GetCurrentProcess(), MinWorkingSet, MaxWorkingSet) then
ShowMessage(Format('%d'#13#10'%d', [MinWorkingSet, MaxWorkingSet]));
No error occurs, but both the Min and Max values returned by GetProcessWorkingSetSize are 81,920.
I tried using SetProcessWorkingSetSizeEx using QUOTA_LIMITS_HARDWS_MAX_ENABLE ($00000004) in the Flags parameter. Unfortunately, SetProcessWorkingSetSizeEx fails with "Code 87. The parameter is incorrect" if I pass anything other than $00000000 in Flags.
I've also pursued using Job Objects to accomplish the same goal. I have memory limits working with Job Objects when launching a child process. However, I need the ability for a service to set its own memory limits rather than depending on a "launching" service to do it. So far, I haven't found a way for a single process to create a job object and then add itself to the job object. This always fails with Access Denied.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
The documentation of SetProcessWorkingSetSize function says:
dwMinimumWorkingSetSize [in]
...
This parameter must be greater than
zero but less than or equal to the maximum working set size. The
default size is 50 pages (for example, this is 204,800 bytes on
systems with a 4K page size). If the value is greater than zero but
less than 20 pages, the minimum value is set to 20 pages.
In case of a 4K page size, the imposed minimum value is 20 * 4096 = 81920 bytes which is the value you saw.
The values are specified in bytes.
To actually limit the memory for your service process, I think it's possible to create a new job (CreateJobObject), set the memory limit (SetInformationJobObject) and assign your current process to the job (AssignProcessToJobObject) in the service's start up routine.
Unfortunately, on Windows before 8 and Server 2012, this won't work if the process already belongs to a job:
Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows XP with SP3, Windows Server
2008, Windows Vista and Windows Server 2003: The process must not
already be assigned to a job; if it is, the function fails with
ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED. This behavior changed starting in Windows 8 and
Windows Server 2012.
If this is your case (ie. you get ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED on older Windows) check if the process is already assigned to a job (in which case, you're out of luck) but also make sure that it has the required access rights: PROCESS_SET_QUOTA and PROCESS_TERMINATE.
I'm experimenting with 2 Gluster 3.7 servers in 1x2 configuration. Servers are connected over 1 Gbit network. I'm using Debian Jessie.
My use case is as follows: open file -> append 64 bytes -> close file and do this in a loop for about 5000 different files. Execution time for such loop is roughly 10 seconds if I access files through mounted glusterfs drive. If I use libgfsapi directly, execution time is about 5 seconds (2 times faster).
However, the same loop executes in 50ms on plain ext4 disk.
There is huge performance difference between Gluster 3.7 end earlier versions which is, I believe, due to the cluster.eager-lock setting.
My target is to execute the loop in less than 1 second.
I've tried to experiment with lots of Gluster settings but without success. dd tests with various bsize values behave like that TCP no-delay option is not set, although from Gluster source code it seems that no-delay is default.
Any idea how to improve the performance?
Edit:
I've found a solution that works in my case so I'd like to share it in case anyone else faces the same issue.
The root cause of the problem is the number of roundtrips between client and Gluster server during execution of open/write/close sequence. I don't know exactly what is happening behind but timing measurements shows exactly that pattern. Now, the obvious idea would be to "pack" open/write/close sequence into a single write function. Roughly, the C prototype of such function would be:
int write(const char* fname, const void *buf, size_t nbyte, off_t offset)
But, there is already such API function glfs_h_anonymous_write in libgfapi (thanks goes to Suomya from Gluster mailing group). Kind of hidden thing there is the file identifier which is not plain file name, but something of type struct glfs_object. Clients obtain an instance of such object through API calls glfs_h_lookupat/glfs_h_creat. The point here is that glfs_object representing filename is "stateless" in a sense that corresponding inode is left intact (not ref counted). One should think of glfs_object as plain filename identifier and use it as you would use filename (actually, glfs_object stores plain pointer to corresponding inode without ref counting it).
Finally, we should use glfs_h_lookupat/glfs_h_creat once and write many times to the file using glfs_h_anonymous_write.
That way I was able to append 64 bytes to 5000 files in 0.5 seconds, which is 20 times faster than using mounted volume and open//write/close sequence.
How to find size of a semaphore object in windows?
I tried using sizeof() but we cannot give name of the sempahore object as an argument to sizeof. It has to be the handle. sizeof(HANDLE) gives us the size of handle and not semaphore.
This what is known as an "opaque handle.". There is no way to know how big it really is, what it contains or how any of the functions work internally. This gives Microsoft the ability to completely rewrite the implementation with each new version of Windows if they want to without worrying about breaking existing code. It's a similar concept to having a public and private interface to a class. Since we are not working on the Windows kernel, we only get to see the public interface.
Update:
It might be possible to get a rough idea of how big they are by creating a bunch and monitoring what happens to your memory usage in Process Explorer. However, since there is a good chance that they live in the kernel and not in user space, it might not show up at all. In any case, there are no guarantees about any other version of Windows, past or future, including patches/service packs.
It's something "hidden" from you. You can't say how big it is. And it's a kernel object, so it probably doesn't even live in your address space. It's like asking "how big is the Process Table?", or "how many MB is Windows wasting?".
I'll add that I have made a small test on my Windows 7 32 bits machine: 100000 kernel semaphores (with name X{number} with 0 <= number < 100000)) : 4 mb of kernel memory and 8 mb of user space (both measured with Task Manager). It's about 40 bytes/semaphore in kernel space and 80 bytes/semaphore in user space! (this in Win32... In 64 bits it'll probably double)
Operating System: Windows XP 64 bit, SP2.
I have an unusual problem. I am porting some code from 32 bit to 64 bit. The 32 bit code works just fine. But when I call CreateThread() for the 64 bit version the call fails. I have three places where this fails. 2 call CreateThread(). 1 calls beginthreadex() which calls CreateThread().
All three calls fail with error code 0x3E6, "Invalid access to memory location".
The problem is all the input parameters are correct.
HANDLE h;
DWORD threadID;
h = CreateThread(0, // default security
0, // default stack size
myThreadFunc, // valid function to call
myParam, // my param
0, // no flags, start thread immediately
&threadID);
All three calls to CreateThread() are made from a DLL I've injected into the target program at the start of the program execution (this is before the program has got to the start of main()/WinMain()). If I call CreateThread() from the target program (same params) via say a menu, it works. Same parameters etc. Bizarre.
If I pass NULL instead of &threadID, it still fails.
If I pass NULL as myParam, it still fails.
I'm not calling CreateThread from inside DllMain(), so that isn't the problem. I'm confused and searching on Google etc hasn't shown any relevant answers.
If anyone has seen this before or has any ideas, please let me know.
Thanks for reading.
ANSWER
Short answer: Stack Frames on x64 need to be 16 byte aligned.
Longer answer:
After much banging my head against the debugger wall and posting responses to the various suggestions (all of which helped in someway, prodding me to try new directions) I started exploring what-ifs about what was on the stack prior to calling CreateThread(). This proved to be a red-herring but it did lead to the solution.
Adding extra data to the stack changes the stack frame alignment. Sooner or later one of the tests gets you to 16 byte stack frame alignment. At that point the code worked. So I retraced my steps and started putting NULL data onto the stack rather than what I thought was the correct values (I had been pushing return addresses to fake up a call frame). It still worked - so the data isn't important, it must be the actual stack addresses.
I quickly realised it was 16 byte alignment for the stack. Previously I was only aware of 8 byte alignment for data. This microsoft document explains all the alignment requirements.
If the stackframe is not 16 byte aligned on x64 the compiler may put large (8 byte or more) data on the wrong alignment boundaries when it pushes data onto the stack.
Hence the problem I faced - the hooking code was called with a stack that was not aligned on a 16 byte boundary.
Quick summary of alignment requirements, expressed as size : alignment
1 : 1
2 : 2
4 : 4
8 : 8
10 : 16
16 : 16
Anything larger than 8 bytes is aligned on the next power of 2 boundary.
I think Microsoft's error code is a bit misleading. The initial STATUS_DATATYPE_MISALIGNMENT could be expressed as a STATUS_STACK_MISALIGNMENT which would be more helpful. But then turning STATUS_DATATYPE_MISALIGNMENT into ERROR_NOACCESS - that actually disguises and misleads as to what the problem is. Very unhelpful.
Thank you to everyone that posted suggestions. Even if I disagreed with the suggestions, they prompted me to test in a wide variety of directions (including the ones I disagreed with).
Written a more detailed description of the problem of datatype misalignment here: 64 bit porting gotcha #1! x64 Datatype misalignment.
The only reason that 64bit would make a difference is that threading on 64bit requires 64bit aligned values. If threadID isn't 64bit aligned, you could cause this problem.
Ok, that idea's not it. Are you sure it's valid to call CreateThread before main/WinMain? It would explain why it works in a menu- because that's after main/WinMain.
In addition, I'd triple-check the lifetime of myParam. CreateThread returns (this I know from experience) long before the function you pass in is called.
Post the thread routine's code (or just a few lines).
It suddenly occurs to me: Are you sure that you're injecting your 64bit code into a 64bit process? Because if you had a 64bit CreateThread call and tried to inject that into a 32bit process running under WOW64, bad things could happen.
Starting to seriously run out of ideas. Does the compiler report any warnings?
Could the bug be due to a bug in the host program, rather than the DLL? There's some other code, such as loading a DLL if you used __declspec(import/export), that occurs before main/WinMain. If that DLLMain, for example, had a bug in it.
I ran into this issue today. And I checked every argument feed into _beginthread/CreateThread/NtCreateThread via rohitab's Windows API Monitor v2. Every argument is aligned properly (AFAIK).
So, where does STATUS_DATATYPE_MISALIGNMENT come from?
The first few lines of NtCreateThread validate parameters passed from user mode.
ProbeForReadSmallStructure (ThreadContext, sizeof (CONTEXT), CONTEXT_ALIGN);
for i386
#define CONTEXT_ALIGN (sizeof(ULONG))
for amd64
#define STACK_ALIGN (16UI64)
...
#define CONTEXT_ALIGN STACK_ALIGN
On amd64, if the ThreadContext pointer is not aligned to 16 bytes, NtCreateThread will return STATUS_DATATYPE_MISALIGNMENT.
CreateThread (actually CreateRemoteThread) allocated ThreadContext from stack, and did nothing special to guarantee the alignment requirement is satisfied. Things will work smoothly if every piece of your code followed Microsoft x64 calling convention, which unfortunately not true for me.
PS: The same code may work on newer Windows (say Vista and newer). I didn't check though. I'm facing this issue on Windows Server 2003 R2 x64.
I'm in the business of using parallel threads under windows
for calculations. No funny business, no dll-calls, and certainly
no call-back's. The following works in 32 bits windows. I set up the stack for my calculation, well within the area reserved for my program.
All releveant data about area's and start addresses is contained in
a data structure that is passed to CreateThread as parameter 3.
The address that is called contains a small assembler routine
that uses this data stucture.
Indeed this routine finds the address to return to on the stack,
then the address of the data structure.
There is no reason to go far into this. It just works and it calculates
the number of primes below 2,000,000,000 just fine, in one thread,
in two threads or in 20 threads.
Now CreateThread in 64 bits doesn't push the address of the data
structure. That seems implausible so I show you the smoking gun,
a dump of a debug session.
In the subwindow at the bottom right you see the stack, and
there is merely the return address, amidst a sea of zeroes.
The mechanism I use to fill in parameters is portable between 32 and 64 bits.
No other call exhibits a difference between word-sizes.
Moreover why would the code address work but not the data address?
The bottom line: one would expect that CreateThread passes the data parameter on the stack in the same way in 64 bits as in 32 bits, then does a subroutine call. At the assembler level it doesn't work that way. If there are any hidden requirements to e.g. RSP that are automatically fullfilled in C++ that would be very nasty.
P.S. No there are no 16 byte alignment problems. That lies ages behind me.
Try using _beginthread() or _beginthreadex() instead, you shouldn't be using CreateThread directly.
See this previous question.