From: invalid AT erehwon DOT invalid (Graaagh the Mighty) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Strange behavior of compiler. Organization: Low Charisma Anonymous Message-ID: <3b351c8b.105259312@news.primus.ca> References: X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 31 Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 22:48:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.176.153.154 X-Complaints-To: news AT primus DOT ca X-Trace: news2.tor.primus.ca 993336558 207.176.153.154 (Sat, 23 Jun 2001 18:49:18 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 18:49:18 EDT To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:29:33 +0300 (IDT), Eli Zaretskii sat on a tribble, which squeaked: > >On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:58:54 GMT, invalid AT erehwon DOT invalid (Graaagh the >Mighty) sat on a tribble, which squeaked: > >>I have more information. On a hunch I looked at the changes. There was >>a bug in one of the debugging bits I added that would in fact have >>jumped into never-never land -- *if* "bar" had ever been reached. So >>why weren't the call frame traceback EIPs more like: >> >> 0x01fc0000 0x1fc0000 >> 0x00f00ba7 _bar+42, line 666 of bwlsm.c >> 0x0000178b _main+275, line 195 of bwlsm.c >> 0x00057b7a ___crt1_startup+174 >> >>even with no aggressive optimizations? > >Because the crash happened inside CWSDPMI, and CWSDPMI doesn't have >access to your program's call stack. Wrong thread. This was a different problem, and as you can see from reading the post, I *did* get a traceback, it merely seemed to omit information. Also, that one was dealt with entirely under Windoze. CWSDPMI was never even invoked. -- Bill Gates: "No computer will ever need more than 640K of RAM." -- 1980 "There's nobody getting rich writing software that I know of." -- 1980 "This antitrust thing will blow over." -- 1998 Combine neo, an underscore, and one thousand sixty-one to make my hotmail addy.