Mail Archives: djgpp/2001/06/26/09:12:42
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Graaagh the Mighty wrote:
> >> Well, why is there no traceback for the user code then?
> >
> >Because the traceback you are used to see comes from the application, not
> >from CWSDPMI.
>
> Okay, so you're saying an application crashes, whereupon either a
> traceback is emitted or not, depending apparently on whether the DPMI
> host or some other associated "attachment" detects the access
> violation. The DPMI host produces poorer info.
Yes.
> Is there a way to ensure the other "attachment" is always the first
> one to detect the violation?
No. The DPMI host always gets the first chance to look at any
exceptional condition.
> >But, however cautious that code is, it cannot cope with all possible
> >problems. For example, imagine that the SS selector is invalid: in that
> >case, calling library functions will just cause another exception.
>
> Exactly what would user code have to be doing to mangle the SS
> selector?
Any number of things. It could simply load some value into SS in
inline assembly. Or call int86x with wrong arguments. Or installe a
real-mode callback with wrong parameters.
> >The application is dying horribly, not the DPMI host.
>
> Your original statement was either incorrect then or unclear and
> ambiguous; I read it as saying that CWSDPMI crashed.
I knew you won't want to understand.
- Raw text -