From: invalid AT erehwon DOT invalid (Graaagh the Mighty) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Peculiar behavior of program. Organization: Low Charisma Anonymous Message-ID: <3b372211.237764748@news.primus.ca> References: X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 45 Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:41:31 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.176.153.32 X-Complaints-To: news AT primus DOT ca X-Trace: news2.tor.primus.ca 993470313 207.176.153.32 (Mon, 25 Jun 2001 07:58:33 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 07:58:33 EDT To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:55:32 +0300 (IDT), Eli Zaretskii sat on a tribble, which squeaked: > >On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Graaagh the Mighty wrote: > >> >No, I blame it on you: it's your bug that caused a GPF inside CWSDPMI. >> >> There are clearly two bugs here: >> 1. My code crashed. Ergo, it has a bug. > >Yes. > >> 2. CWSDPMI code crashed. Ergo, it has a bug. > >No, CWSDPMI didn't crash. Where do you think that message with >registers come from? CWSDPMI detected the GPF, printed the message, >aborted the program, then exited. This is in contradiction to your earlier claim. Earlier you said that traceback I posted was a CWSDPMI crash instead of a user-code crash, albeit presumably triggered by a user-code crash. >When GPF's happen inside CWSDPMI, it usually means that the >application's memory or exception table is so badly scrogged that it >doesn't make sense to let the application code run. The latter is a general description of why we have access protections and things like SIGSEGV rather than simply letting an errant program scribble out of bounds. What remains unexplained here is that CWSDPMI is dying horribly, and this is obscuring the cause of the problem. In any case, let's drop this argument about whether it's a bug in CWSDPMI or not if it sometimes blows up when the user code blows up. Even if it is decided to be a bug and corrected it'll be ages before a new version is available. So in the meantime, are there any suggestions as to how to get a meaningful traceback in this case? Not having a traceback indicating where the program was in its parameter space when it began to seriously screw up is rather like being blindfolded... -- Bill Gates: "No computer will ever need more than 640K of RAM." -- 1980 "There's nobody getting rich writing software that I know of." -- 1980 "This antitrust thing will blow over." -- 1998 Combine neo, an underscore, and one thousand sixty-one to make my hotmail addy.