Mail Archives: djgpp/2009/05/21/09:18:12

X-Authentication-Warning: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Subject: RE: Increasing area for variable storage
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:01:44 -0400
Message-ID: <8D3725B46A89324DB7BAD62DB826C99802EC52EC@Mercury>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: Increasing area for variable storage
Thread-Index: AcnZoTe4LZgd5krNSR+KGRDAX2koiwAcuOMg
References: <0KJY00585R208H10 AT mta5 DOT srv DOT hcvlny DOT cv DOT net> <EYqdnW-SUoAJFonXnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d AT earthlink DOT com>
From: "Belden, Bruce" <BBelden AT teleco DOT com>
To: <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
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

Would it be helpful to look at what's in memory?
Mem /c

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Sandmann [mailto:cwsdpmi AT earthlink DOT net]=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:01 PM
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Increasing area for variable storage

"Ethan Rosenberg" <ethros AT earthlink DOT net> wrote in message=20
news:0KJY00585R208H10 AT mta5 DOT srv DOT hcvlny DOT cv DOT net...
> Dear List -
> Thank you for all your help in the past.
> I am running DOS 7.1 [the DOS that underlies Windows98].  The computer

> does NOT have Windows installed on it.
> I have a program that had a size of 228,038 bytes and ran perfectly in
> past.  When I added some more code, increasing the size to 241,134
bytes I=20
> get a SIGSEGV error when I attempt to initialize a variable.  The
> was scanned with Splint, which showed no errors. When I removed some
> it again ran perfectly.  My feeling is that I have overrun the
boundary of=20
> the area in which the values of the variables, or possibly the
> themselves, are stored.
> How do I increase these area(s)?

If your variables are stack based, you can increase the stack
size using stubedit for your program (usually 512KB, but
can be changed).  If you are allocating your variables via
new, malloc, or static storage, there is no limit (other than
the amount of memory / paging / dpmi memory available).

If increasing the stack size does not resolve your problem,
then it is some other bug, not sizing related.  Look at the
line number referenced by symify for more details.

- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019