Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:27:39 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: HELP! : Debugging a c/asm mixed programs
In-Reply-To: <8csb6s$chj$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000410141951.23677F-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On 10 Apr 2000, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> > In any case, I don't think FSDB would crash even if it does try to access a
> > bad address.  
> 
> IIRC, getting proper handling of unmapped memory regions right in our
> GDB port took quite a while, and several tries, didn't it?

Yes, but only because GDB was calling read_child and write_child without 
checking the address first.  FSDB already checks the address before 
accessing it (Morten Welinder, who wrote FSDB, is not known as someone 
who forgets these kinds of safety nets ;-).

Note that the case in point didn't really require FSDB to actually access 
another segment.  (None of the DJGPP debuggers currently can access other 
segments; GDB provides a limited way of doing that, because it supports 
calling functions linked into the application.)