Mail Archives: djgpp/1995/12/31/10:03:48
Xref: | news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:4074
|
Path: | news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!bird3.i-link.net!usenet
|
From: | royce3 AT i-link DOT net (Royce E. Mitchell III)
|
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp
|
Subject: | Re: Windows95: ld causes segmentation faults
|
Date: | Sun, 31 Dec 1995 15:32:54 GMT
|
Organization: | I-Link Inc
|
Lines: | 53
|
Message-ID: | <4c63fh$s3g@bird3.i-link.net>
|
References: | <DKD31B DOT 3A5 AT jade DOT mv DOT net>
|
Reply-To: | royce3 AT i-link DOT net
|
NNTP-Posting-Host: | houston-1-2.i-link.net
|
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com
|
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
|
elzinga AT alumni DOT caltech DOT edu (Dean Elzinga) wrote:
>Sorry for this repeat question, but I was trying to subscribe to
>this list when I first asked about general protection faults--
>unsuccessfully, it turns out, until now.
>I've figured out that gcc works okay in my DOS box, but ld
>causes a segmentation fault. Usually the error message
>actually calls it a general protection fault.
Usually, if GCC has a GPF, it's because it didn't like something
code, that's the experience I've had.
>I have combed over mail archives at DJ's web page (and one
>other place), and read the FAQ. Does anyone have any quick
>intuition about what could be the problem or the fix?
>I have tried using the 16-bit real-mode version of GCC, and
>I've tried such things as removing NOEMS from my call to EMM386.
>The DOS box seems to have plenty of memory available to it;
>go32 reports at least 16 MEG of DPMI and 60 meg of swap space.
>Has anyone gotten 1.12M4 working under Windows95.
I've never even touched the 16-bit real-mode version of GCC.
I've been compiling mostly in a DOS box in Win95. I have 8MB,
and far less that 60MB HD space.
Try this:
put #error's in your code and remove them until you get the GPF
turns up again. For example...
#error line 4
....some code
#error line 8
If you get the GPF with line 4 removed, but you don't get the GPF
with line 4 there, then the problem is between them.
>Should I get the V2 beta? Is that more likely to work?
I think the problem is more likely to do with GCC than DJGPP,
but I imagine the V2 is going to work much better than 1.12m4
anyway. I'd say get it.
>--dean
>elzinga AT alumni DOT caltech DOT edu
hope it helps
- Raw text -