Sender: nate AT cartsys DOT com
Message-ID: <36FAB64A.1B04FA36@cartsys.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:18:50 -0800
From: Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3 i586)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Patch: Child memory access in dbgcom checks page attributes
References: <199903241806 DOT TAA10783 AT father DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Martin Str|mberg wrote:
> 
> I said:
> > The change I object to is this:
> 
> I object to my wording, which wasn't chosen properly.
> 
> I meant to say "The change I'm concerned with is this:".
> 
> To further alleviate my troubled mind, I seem to have missread the
> patch, which seems to be correct mathematically. However I'm still a
> little concerned with the real world behaviuor.
>
> Nate, what does "p *-1" at the gdb prompt give you when running a
> program in gdb with your patches?

(gdb) p *-1
Cannot access memory at address 0xffffffff.

I didn't actually remove any of the tests, I just reversed the sense of
each so as to be able to separate them from each other.  (DeMorgan's
law, is it?)

Note also that `a' is unsigned, so 0xffffffff is greater than the limit.
-- 

Nate Eldredge
nate AT cartsys DOT com