Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Server-Uuid:	2d3b7162-db1d-11d3-b8ee-0008c7dfb6f1
Message-ID:	<718198F862F1D411B10F0002A50A4DB101A4F0EF@e90wwce3.dx.deere.com>
From:	"Polley Christopher W" <PolleyChristopherW AT JohnDeere DOT com>
Reply-to:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
cc:	"Werner Tuchan" <tuwn AT gmx DOT net>
Subject:	RE: bootstrap/5149: gcc-20011217 reads beyond EOF on cygwin
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:19:58 -0600
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-WSS-ID:	103D54EA122060-01-02

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Christopher Faylor [SMTP:cgf AT redhat DOT com]
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:42:14PM +0100, Werner Tuchan wrote:
> >> Weird.  The bytes after EOF are a mixture of NULs and 0xc0.  Is 0xc0
> >> of special significance in Windows?  Is your version of cygwin the
AFAIR, I once read in the book "Code Complete..." by Steve McConnell (a MS
programmer from the pre-windows days) a recommendation to set uninitialized
pointers and memory to a known value (I think he used 0xcccccccc for
pointers and C0 for buffers) to aid in finding bugs of using unitinialized
data areas.  My limited experience with the MS debugger leads me to believe
that this is a practice [at least some of] the MS kernel developers follow.
(BTW, he also advocated setting allocated blocks to another known value
immediately before freeing them, for a similar reason)

Warm Regards,
Chris




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -