delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | DougEleveld <deleveld AT dds DOT nl> |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: cwsdpmi problem |
Date: | Thu, 01 Oct 1998 18:39:42 +0200 |
Organization: | Rijksuniversiteit Groningen |
Lines: | 19 |
Message-ID: | <3613B04E.F9177D79@dds.nl> |
References: | <Pine DOT GSO DOT 3 DOT 96 DOT 980930103430 DOT 17929C-100000 AT rtbsci146s> <36131AC7 DOT 53E8 AT post DOT tau DOT ac DOT il> |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | client36-119.oprit.rug.nl |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
X-Mailer: | Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; I) |
X-Priority: | 3 (Normal) |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Tal Lavi wrote: > > Olivier Perron wrote: > > > > > you certainly dereference a null pointer. > > Look at your code where you could use a null pointer. > > > > Olivier. > > are you sure? > why does it work fine with the win95 dpmi server? Because Win95 lets you dereference NULL pointers. The protection that CWSDPMI gives you is much better than the Win96 dpmi server. I don't know if it's true or not, but the suspicion is that if Win95 trapped these problems, then some win95 software wouldn't work, so thay have to leave it alone. Doug Eleveld
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |