Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 04:14:46 +0100 (BST)
From: George Foot <george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk>
To: "John M. Aldrich" <fighteer AT cs DOT com>
cc: DJGPP Workers Mailing List <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Latest stub
In-Reply-To: <339DC0FC.11C8@cs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970611040219.15442B-100000@sable.ox.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, John M. Aldrich wrote:

> I would like to see agreement on the error codes to use, first.  I am
> all too aware of how a trivial change now can prove disastrous in the
> future when it interacts or interferes with some program that assumes
> things.  Is there any possibility that a program might try to return
> error codes in the 100-110 range for some purpose, and is it worth
> worrying about it for such a slim chance?

Perhaps a work-around would be to add an extra stubedit field containing
the base (e.g. default 100) for these return values? This would of course
hamper diagnostic programs which rely on a fixed set of return values, but
perhaps it would be possible for such software to extract this value from
the executable. If such a diagnostic utility was designed to diagnose only
one executable (as is the case with DJVERIFY) then the modified set of
values could be hardcoded anyway.

-- 
George Foot <mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
Merton College, Oxford