Date:	Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:08:01 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
cc:	"Nimrod A. Abing" <n_abing AT ns DOT roxas-online DOT net DOT ph>,
	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: dpmiexcp.c with core dumping
In-Reply-To:	<10103290510.AA17496@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010329110537.3269D-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> I would also like to see a "standard" format, but there is a problem
> when we use the non-move sbrk().  Since Windows just loves returning 
> non-contiguous memory blocks all over the place (sometimes below the
> base address, which makes it look like a 4Gb address space) the core
> files are huge unless they are dumped in pieces.

The code which George Foot wrote and which Nimrod is using as a starting 
point walks the DPMI memory handles and writes only the memory we 
actually sbrk'ed.  This solves the problem with a seemingly-huge address 
space when Windows puts base address near the end of 4GB, doesn't it?

- Raw text -