From: Jason Green <news AT jgreen4 DOT fsnet DOT co DOT uk>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Windows ME and DJGPP
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:48:09 +0000
Organization: Customer of Energis Squared
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <fsd97t4r1gesii5ke7u4vabee0hr8fl9mt@4ax.com>
References: <3A6CB71F DOT 8B4E86C9 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <94k3dc$lf9$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE> <slrn96u191 DOT 2cl DOT rpolzer AT rebounce DOT rpolzer-lx> <94pm3k$1qf$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE> <slrn970p9v DOT 28f DOT rpolzer AT rebounce DOT rpolzer-lx> <94rrk4$sro$1 AT antares DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se> <slrn973r3m DOT 1vo DOT rpolzer AT rebounce DOT rpolzer-lx> <9003-Sat27Jan2001104054+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <slrn9758nt DOT kg DOT rpolzer AT rebounce DOT rpolzer-lx> <qui57ts29nkob9g12f7rc2pual2hn501c6 AT 4ax DOT com> <slrn978aq2 DOT 11k DOT rpolzer AT rebounce DOT rpolzer-lx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-34.titanium.dialup.pol.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk 980729300 16784 62.136.21.34 (29 Jan 2001 00:48:20 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jan 2001 00:48:20 GMT
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT theplanet DOT net
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


> > It compiles cleanly like this:
> > 
> > int main(void)
> > {
> >  char *p = 0;
> >  *p = 'X';
> >  
> >  return 0;
> > }

> > > And I do not think clean code can contain a line which can produce many
> > > errors that result in SIGSEGV but gives no hint about it.
> > 
> > Try stepping up the warnings you have enabled.  I don't think it's
> > possible for gcc to flag bugs like in the above example but it might
> > show up some other problem with your code.
> 
> Perhaps it can flag this one when optimizing.

Not when I tried, although lint might catch this.  

One reason gcc misses it may be that all-bits-zero pointer is valid on
some platforms (I think).  Feel free to suggest this to the gcc
maintainers though.

My point though was not regarding the example code.  I am merely
suggesting to up the warning level to something more extreme when
compiling the problem code, in order to see how clean it really is and
perhaps weed out a bug.  I should add that of course I don't know what
warnings you are using (and so what you mean by clean code) - maybe
you already did this.

I'm kinda loosing the thread here, are you saying you only get SIGSEGV
under Windows ME?  Did you try your program under real-mode DOS (from
boot floppy)?