Subject Re: [Firebird-Java] JVM access violation with Firebird Embedded
Author Mark Rotteveel
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 23:07:16 -0000, "Walter" <waltermarsi@...>
> After installing the latest version of Firebird Embedded (2.5) a file
> named "hs_err_pidXXX.log" appears every time I close my application (the
> XXX is a number that's different for each file). I found out that it
> happens when I use a select query that contains a stored procedure
> (something like "SELECT * FROM MY_PROCEDURE..."). The procedure had
> fine with previous versions of Firebird, and the "hs_err" file is not
> created when I use the same database with a Firebird server instead of
> using the embedded version. These are the file that I deploy with my
> application:
> fbembed.dll
> ib_util
> iucdt30.dll
> icuin30.dll
> icuuc30.dll
> jaybird21.dll
> jaybird-full-2.1.6.jar
> and these are the first lines of the hs_err_pid file:
> #
> # A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime Environment:
> #
> # EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION (0xc0000005) at pc=0x035dfe16, pid=1712,
> tid=2084
> #
> # JRE version: 6.0_29-b11
> # Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (20.4-b02 mixed mode, sharing
> windows-x86 )
> # Problematic frame:
> # C [fbembed.dll+0x3fe16]
> #
> # If you would like to submit a bug report, please visit:
> #
> #
> Can someone help me to fix this ?

The error - with out further details - could mean that this is either a
problem in Firebird Embedded itself, or the way Jaybird accesses Firebird

Could you try the following:
* Does it occur with Firebird Embedded 2.5.1 (might be a problem already
* Does it occur when access an actual Firebird server using the
jdbc:firebirdsql:native: protocol with a 2.5.0 and 2.5.1 fbclient.dll (it
might be a problem in the fbclient side)

If it does fail with Firebird Embedded 2.5.1. Could you then please file a
concise, but complete ticket in the tracker at under JDBC (if it happens to be a CORE
problem, we will move it).
This ticket should include:
* The full content of the hs_err_pid file (as attachment)
* The version(s) you know it did work in
* A minimal(!) database and the code which demonstrates the problem
* If the database uses UDF: the relevant UDFs and if possible their
* Details of the above tests against 2.5.1, and using native 2.5.0 and
2.5.1 client to a server