Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com X-Server-Uuid: 2d3b7162-db1d-11d3-b8ee-0008c7dfb6f1 Message-ID: <718198F862F1D411B10F0002A50A4DB101A4F0EF@e90wwce3.dx.deere.com> From: "Polley Christopher W" Reply-to: cygwin@cygwin.com To: cygwin@cygwin.com cc: "Werner Tuchan" Subject: RE: bootstrap/5149: gcc-20011217 reads beyond EOF on cygwin Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:19:58 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-WSS-ID: 103D54EA122060-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Faylor [SMTP:cgf@redhat.com] > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:42:14PM +0100, Werner Tuchan wrote: > >> Weird. The bytes after EOF are a mixture of NULs and 0xc0. Is 0xc0 > >> of special significance in Windows? Is your version of cygwin the AFAIR, I once read in the book "Code Complete..." by Steve McConnell (a MS programmer from the pre-windows days) a recommendation to set uninitialized pointers and memory to a known value (I think he used 0xcccccccc for pointers and C0 for buffers) to aid in finding bugs of using unitinialized data areas. My limited experience with the MS debugger leads me to believe that this is a practice [at least some of] the MS kernel developers follow. (BTW, he also advocated setting allocated blocks to another known value immediately before freeing them, for a similar reason) Warm Regards, Chris -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/