X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10205151711.AA14520@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: emacs under w2k
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 15 May 2002 12:11:55 -0500 (CDT)
Cc:	lauras AT softhome DOT net, eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
In-Reply-To:	<3028-Wed15May2002192132+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at May 15, 2002 07:21:32 PM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
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

> So I think the next thing to find out is whether it explodes inside
> sbrk (which would mean it's our fault) or in the gmalloc/ralloc code.

is this a traceback type abort for us?  Or an NTVDM death?  If it's
dieing outside our code, it could be that Win2K has bugs in the 
realloc dpmi call which is used for unixy sbrk.  Who knows how
often it has to move a region?

> If the latter, I'd try to look for large positive values being
> interpreted as negative numbers.  gmalloc is notorious for mixing
> signed and unsigned variables in ingenious ways.

If built with v2.03 refresh, we shouldn't see any large positive or
negative values.  

> Btw, Charles will probably ask this at some point, so I'll answer
> proactively: Emacs sets the Unixy sbrk bit in _crt0_startup_flags.

It would be interesting to see if clearing that caused it to behave
better (with the refresh fix to sbrk()...)

- Raw text -