The 18 June 2006 build is out.

[royalbox]

Thanks all, I obviously downloaded the wrong thing. I'll take another look.

@pecan
I've installed the free MSVC 2005 express (without the IDE or other options when you install it).
I used to have the MS toolkit 2003 but uninstalled that after installing 2005. I've installed the platform SDK server 2003 R2.
I was forced to install .net for some app. I seem to have .net 1.1 + hotfix, and .net 2.

To test, I also installed code::blocks on another install of XP I have on a separate partition which is virtually bare-bones. The access violation dialog happend there as well.

I'll post back the results of my test once I've got the right download.

[royalbox]

I downloaded gdb-6.3-2.exe. I didn't download any of the other stuff, so I just have that and mingwm10.dll which is in my code blocks folder.

Right, I booted to my partition that has the 17 June 2006 build. I ran a .cmd file which has

Code

"C:\mingw\bin\gdb.exe" "C:\Program Files\Code Blocks\codeblocks.exe"

in it.
I typed 'run' and got:

Code

Starting program: C:\Program Files\Code Blocks\codeblocks.exe
---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit---
---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit---

I clicked on the 'open' icon as i know this always brings up the violation dialog and got:

Code

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x77ea3c00 in RpcRaiseException () from C:\WINDOWS\system32\rpcrt4.dll

I did 'bt all' as suggested and got:

Code

No symbol table is loaded.  Use the "file" command.

Please let me know if there's anything else you want me to try.

EDIT:
The bad news is, I tried the same thing on my working 2006/06/10 code::blocks and got exactly the same result!

[Pecan]

and got:

Code

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x77ea3c00 in RpcRaiseException () from C:\WINDOWS\system32\rpcrt4.dll

Before we go any further, I think it would be wise for you to do a thorough virus scan. Kernel32.dll and rpc4.dll are subject to segfaults when infected.

Secondly, how old is your machine. When was it last dusted inside and the memory reseated?

This is beginning to smell like a virus or hardware glitch.

Check out the machine. Try your CodeBlocks on another machine. But do NOT take along any other software. De-infect your machine BEFORE taking CodeBlocks to another machine.

The only other way that I could guess that CodeBlocks is making Remote Procedure Calls is if the stack got corrupted. You'll have to compile the source to check that out.

Virus check first. Clean machine next. Sources third.

pecan


Edit: Also, if you have any open/save/directory find assist software installed, disable it while testing CodeBlocks.

EDIT:
The bad news is, I tried the same thing on my working 2006/06/10 code::blocks and got exactly the same result!

It sounds like this error was happening all the time. It just got caught by the new CodeBlocks signal trapper.

[royalbox]

@Pecan
Well, I did a virus scan and have no infections. I have anti-virus running all the time anyway on auto-update. Besides, I tested code::blocks on my second partition which is virtually a clean install of XP.

My machine is about 5 years old. It hasn't been dusted for about 3 years. When I did last clean it it casued the motherboard to fail and I had to replace it, so I keep away from the insides unless necessary. The memory has never been re-seated, but it was replaced a couple of years ago.

I can't check on another machine, I don't have one, I'm a full-time carer now so don't have a work computer anymore.

I've not got any open/save/directory find assist software -- not even sure I know what it is.

What I do have is thunderbird, firefox, winrar, roboform, nero, irfanview, virtual pc, avast! antivirus, kerio firewall, various sofware development apps, various video and photo editing apps...etc. none of which I can recall any problem with.

What I have noticed though is a few other people in the forum with the same problem as I have. This makes me feel strongly that it isn't dust or a loose memory board or a virus but a problem with code::blocks that maybe only happens with certain OS or file versions or something like that.

It would be interesting to see what the others are running code::blocks on. Mine is XP home SP2 with all recent hotfixes.

It doesn't look like we're going to solve this so I'll just have to stick with 2006/06/10 . I'll keep checking the nightly's forum to see if it ever gets solved.

Thanks for all your help anyway.

[sethjackson]

You might wantl run your RAM through this.....

http://www.memtest86.com/

Oh BTW I have Code::Blocks on a laptop with Windows XP Pro SP2 (no extra hotfixes though).

[Pecan]

It would be interesting to see what the others are running code::blocks on. Mine is XP home SP2 with all recent hotfixes.

Could you try installing XP sp2 without the hot fixes then run CodeBlocks?
The hotfixes may be the problem.

just guessing.

[Denis]

Replase dialog ignores flag "Entire scope" and searches for replace from cursor

[Michael]

It would be interesting to see what the others are running code::blocks on. Mine is XP home SP2 with all recent hotfixes.

Could you try installing XP sp2 without the hot fixes then run CodeBlocks?
The hotfixes may be the problem.

just guessing.

Hello,

I am not sure about this, because I too have Windows XP SP2 with all the hotfixes (I always keep my OS up-to-date , but never had such problems.

May be there is some kind of libraries/applications conflicts, or partially corrupted OS, or something other.

Best wishes,
Michael

[Pecan]

I am not sure about this, because I too have Windows XP SP2 with all the hotfixes (I always keep my OS up-to-date , but never had such problems.

May be there is some kind of libraries/applications conflicts, or partially corrupted OS, or something other.

royalbox;

The next step is here: Building From Source
http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Building_From_Source

You may use wxWidgets 2.6.2 or 2.6.3 with the patch.

By building the sources yourself we will be able to do a debug build, thereby solving the problem with "bt all". We will need that backtrace to shoot the problem.

It's not hard, but it is sometimes frustrating the first time you build. After that, we all wonder why we thought it was going to be hard.

try it.

[royalbox]

@Pecan
Right. I'm going to go and make a cup of tea, then I'm going to read what's at that link and try it.

[killerbot]

this might help you also, even more details :
http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Nightly_Cookbook

This link and the onve a few posts above are based upon wx 262.
Building for wx263pl2 is the same,except you need to :
- download wx263
- and download it's patch2 (unzip in the same dir overwriting the wx263 files)

[royalbox]

Very first thing I read is:

The official supported compiler to build Code::Blocks with is GCC (or MinGW). At the present time, GCC is also the only compiler known to successfully build Code::Blocks without modifications.

I've been happilly using MSVC 2005. so, I go to the MinGW site to see what I need. So much writing, so many downloads, I just left.

@killerbot
Thanks for you're help but I don't even know wwhat any of that stuff is or why I need it.

I'm sorry but I really haven't got the inclination to read and learn a lot of stuff that I don't really want to know which is distracting me from learning what I was enjoying learning --C++ and the Win32 API.

I'm going to stick with the version that works.

Sorry all.

[Michael]

Very first thing I read is:

The official supported compiler to build Code::Blocks with is GCC (or MinGW). At the present time, GCC is also the only compiler known to successfully build Code::Blocks without modifications.

I've been happilly using MSVC 2005. so, I go to the MinGW site to see what I need. So much writing, so many downloads, I just left.

@killerbot
Thanks for you're help but I don't even know wwhat any of that stuff is or why I need it.

I'm sorry but I really haven't got the inclination to read and learn a lot of stuff that I don't really want to know which is distracting me from learning what I was enjoying learning --C++ and the Win32 API.

I'm going to stick with the version that works.

Sorry all.

Hello,

Building C::B by yourself is not difficult at all. May be it seems so at the beginning.

You just need:

1) wxWidgets 2.6.2/3
2) MinGW (GCC 3.4.4/5)
3) svn or TortoiseSVN (this one is easier to use)
4) get zip.exe
5) Download C::B SVN sources
6) Build C::B using a nightly build

Best wishes,
Michael

PS.: In the forums there are helpful posts .

[royalbox]

@Michael
Alright, well lets see.

http://wxwidgets.org/downloads/#latest_stable :

wxWidgets 2.6.3 Downloads

    * Source Archives
          o wxALL (Other formats: bz2, zip)
          o wxMSW(Other formats: zip)
          o wxGTK
          o wxMac
          o wxX11
          o Other ports (Motif, OS/2, MGL, Base) and releases ...

Do I need wxALL, wxMSW, wx GTK, I guess not wxMac, sxX11, I guess not other ports. Or do I need a release version? I know nothing about wxWidgets. I'ts not something I've even looked at within code::blocks, I just know it's there.

PS.: In the forums there are helpful posts Smile.

Yes, I'm sure there are but as I said, it's not something that interests me enough to spend the time looking.

I see you have svn listed there. I've never had the need to use svn. It's a term I've seen around a bit over the years but I don't really know what it is. If it means spending time reading about it and learning to to use it just so that I try and find out why I'm getting an access violation then, well, I just can't. My mind will start to wander before I've read a couple of sentences.

Thank you though, I know you're only trying to help.

[royalbox]

http://www.mingw.org/download.shtml

MinGW (GCC 3.4.4/5)

What, binary or source? gcc-objc, gcc-ada, gcc-core, gcc-g++, gcc-g77, I guess not gcc-java.

I don't know what those terms mean, I've only being learning c++ for about a year and visual basic for about a year before that. It really isn't as easy as your list suggests if you don't know what all these versions are for and, more to the point, don't really want to know.