Mail Archives: djgpp/2001/06/19/06:00:46
Graaagh the Mighty wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:04:01 +0200, Tim Van Holder
> <tim DOT vanholder AT falconsoft DOT be> sat on a tribble, which squeaked:
>
> >This is all very interesting, but it would be a LOT more informative
> >and helpful if you posted the code that resulted in the broken
> >behaviour.
>
> It's about a thousand lines long and the bug is *very* unstable --
> almost any change whatsoever stops it reproducing.
And we can hardly be expected to find the problem if we can't see the
code, now can we?
> I won't have a problem once I can get a decent traceback. Why is it
> not generating the "call frame traceback EIPs"? And why does it crash
> Windows? A protected mode task should be utterly unable to bring the
> OS down, unless it invokes a kernel function or device driver that is
> buggy or doesn't enforce its preconditions.
Bad memory accesses can do this too - you might be copying a lot of
data to a wild pointer which happens to point to part of your
executable code; when you then reach that code, it will execute
potentially invalid code that could totally screw up the system.
This definitely includes Windows 9x/ME rebooting - it does a lousy job
of
isolating a DOS box (or any app for that matter) from the rest of
the system.
--
Tim Van Holder - Anubex N.V.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This message was posted using plain text. I do not endorse any
products or services that may be hyperlinked to this message.
- Raw text -