Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:17:55 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
cc: DJGPP <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Problems with protected_mode_int
In-Reply-To: <200001131607.RAA14568@spica-144.lu.erisoft.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000113181603.12754M-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 13 Jan 100, Martin Stromberg wrote:

> > The base and limit are the same, but not the access rights.  If you 
> > pass _my_ss() to the functions which installes the handler, it will
> > use the SS (actually, the DS) selector, and trigger a GPF due to access
> > rights.
> 
> Yeah! But of course I'm passing CS not SS! Where did I say I passed SS?

I thought the code you posted (a couple of days ago) used _my_ss.  
Perhaps my memory failed me (wouldn't be the first time).

> > In addition, in this specific case, the user reported he was using DJGPP 
> > v1.x, where SS was loaded with a different selector (which was the reason 
> > why -fomit-frame-pointer didn't work).
> 
> Yes, but now we are discussing running code on the stack.

That's just it: you couldn't do that in v1.x, since the stack used a 
different segment, with different base, limit, etc.