From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10107280530.AA16684@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Make 3.791 on Windows 2000 test
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 00:30:49 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
In-Reply-To: <009801c11716$fa32b0f0$0a02a8c0@acceleron> from "Andrew Cottrell" at Jul 28, 2001 01:35:41 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> eax=ff970000 ebx=ff970000 ecx=000001e9 edx=ff980000 esi=ff971210
> ebp=000b63f4 esp=000b63cc program=d:\dj204\lib\gcc-lib\djgpp\2.953\cpp0.exe
> cs: sel=0427  base=01e90000  limit=7e15ffff
> ds: sel=042f  base=01e90000  limit=7e15ffff

Note the strange limit here and EAX/EBX are huge positive (negative).  This
is a sure sign of address wrap - thus NT has returned an address block
*LOWER* than the initial address.  We need to fix sbrk() for NT - which
means either forcing unixy sbrk() or ignoring blocks returned less than
the original address.

Sigh.  I'm being punished for developing this insane stuff ...