[Discussion] Access violation

[Thomas Clayton]

Brian:

Highly UNlikely chip problem
Or, put another way,
ALMOST certainly software
 - The OS/2  Science App. .

32-bit protected mode means that the processor 'divides up' memory - AND marks it for use for this, or that, purpose. I suspect THIS data set is just a LITTLE larger than the usual and there is 'spill-over' into memory 'set aside' for something else compared to previous runs.

BTW, I'm assuming that A REboot has once, twice, or thrice, been done to eliminate loading order (and such) errors. 

(E.g. IF some batch file controls the order AND this Science app. is always loaded seventh in the start up sequence; then TRY running things in different order OR doing something with the system DIFFERENT (start an app. that usually isn't) a few times and SEE _IF_ the error gives the same address again - and again.
Sorry about that run-on thought!

Tom Clayton




--- On Wed, 4/7/10, Brian Grawburg <grawburg at myglnc.com> wrote:

> From: Brian Grawburg <grawburg at myglnc.com>
> Subject: Re: [Discussion] Access violation
> To: "POSSI Discussion List" <discussion at lists.possi.org>
> Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010, 10:45 AM
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:34:02 -0700
> (PDT), Thomas Clayton wrote:
> 
> >Dear Brian:
> 
> >It looks to me to be a memory access violation
> > - at 1E CB 32 0A (hex address).
> 
> So that means some part of the application is trying to
> access a specific memory location and is unable
> because some other part is already using it?
> 
> Does this seem to be an application issue as opposed to an
> actual memory chip issue?
> It is only the current set of data that is causing the
> problem.  They can look at previous
> data and perform various calculations without a problem -
> it's just a single set of data
> that is causing the problem.
> 
> 
> >Has it happened before?
> 
> Probably.
> 
> 
> >Is it a DOSbox, or Virtual DOS machine, app.?
> 
> It is a OS/2 native application.
> 
> 
> >Any changes in the "connection" to the "Science
> Apparatus"?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at lists.possi.org
> http://lists.possi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>