Date:	Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:43:15 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Peter Johnson <locke AT mcs DOT net>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Win 2000 and "forcedos"
In-Reply-To:	<MPG.144f0ef3948b7ef09897e2@news-proxy.cso.uiuc.edu>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1001012093035.6141C-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Peter Johnson wrote:

> I just tried and it doesn't appear that it works (eg, "forcedos make" 
> still exhibits the crash problem).

As expected...  Thanks for testing this.

> On a side note, I found another thing that Win2K breaks: hardware 
> breakpoints.  This isn't particularly a problem for gdb, as it defaults 
> to software (int3) breakpoints, but edebug fails to single-step (and 
> reports back error messages saying it can't get a DPMI breakpoint), and 
> fsdb just dies horribly (lock-up essentially).. and gdb fails when you 
> try to use hbreak

Could you please post details about these failures?  It is important to 
understand whether setting the breakpoint fails, or the debug exception 
is not reported correctly to the debugger.  If you could describe the 
exact failures, and perhaps look around in the debuggers' own code to see 
what's failing there, it would help to at least understand the problems.

It might also be interesting to see whether FSDB and EDEBUG from
djdev201.zip have similar problems on W2K.  The debug support functions in
djdev203 are much more intrusive than the previous versions (for very good
reasons), and it might be that some of the added code is causing this
grief. 

What about watchpoints, in GDB and FSDB? do they still work or are they 
also broken (I'd expect the latter)?

Does single-stepping in GDB (the stepi command) work?

> so it's not just the edebug-based code.

It's no wonder: GDB, EDEBUG, and FSDB all share the same debug support 
routines (in libdbg.a).

> I can send patches for a "win2k-compat" version of fsdb to whoever the 
> current maintainer is

Please send them to djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com.  Thanks.

In fact, I suggest to take this entire thread to djgpp-workers.

> but unfortunately I doubt it would be good to 
> integrate them into the main source, as I don't believe there's a 
> reliable method to find out if the program is running under Win2K versus 
> NT4 (if I'm wrong on this, please let me know!).

You are not wrong, but how about a command-line switch to turn on the 
W2K-compatibility mode?

- Raw text -