From:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Peculiar behavior of program.
Date:	25 Jun 2001 07:35:14 GMT
Organization:	Aachen University of Technology (RWTH)
Lines:	44
Message-ID:	<9h6pji$87j$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010621130805 DOT 9042B-100000 AT is> <3b351935 DOT 104404794 AT news DOT primus DOT ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de
X-Trace:	nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE 993454514 8435 137.226.32.75 (25 Jun 2001 07:35:14 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT rwth-aachen DOT de
NNTP-Posting-Date:	25 Jun 2001 07:35:14 GMT
Originator:	broeker@
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Graaagh the Mighty <invalid AT erehwon DOT invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 13:13:44 +0300 (IDT), Eli Zaretskii
> <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> sat on a tribble, which squeaked:

>>As I said earlier, I'd first suspect some stack smashage, like a huge 
>>automatic variable or extremely deep recursion.

> Well there's no huge automatic variables. There is recursion, but I
> don't think it ever goes "extremely deep". 

Don't think. _Check_. Add a little control output at the start and end
of every recursion call and see how deep it is, at the time of the
crash.

> Actually, both are. If CWSDPMI did a better job of not crashing, I'd
> have gotten e.g. a nice stack fault with traceback to aid in
> debugging.

Pardon my french, but that's simply nonsense.  You're obviously
talking way beyond your level of understanding (or at least the level
of understanding that shows through in your postings, so far).

> I've also had apps crash, and then the djgpp_exception_foo stuff
> proceeds to crash, causing me to get a traceback in djgpp code instead
> of my own code. If there's one thing that really seriously needs
> improving in djgpp, it's making crashes more consistently a) produce
> useable tracebacks in the machine (i.e. the default exception handlers
> and CWSDPMI need to be bulletproof, or at least closer to that ideal
> than they are) 

You don't have the slightest idea how robust they already are,
compared to just about everything else in this market (except truly
self-protecting OSes like NT or Linux).  Nothing can be truly
bulletproof while at the same time allowing services of the type DJGPP
users rely on being available (like, say, nearptr mode).  

You have a loaded gun in your hands, you have still got both your
feed; so Bingo!, there's absolutely nothing anybody else could to
prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot.  Nothing but your own
prudence, that is.

-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

- Raw text -