Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:33:10 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <2427-Mon13Aug2001123310+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv, sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu
In-reply-to: <001901c12239$16e71dd0$0a02a8c0@acceleron> (acottrel@ihug.com.au)
Subject: Re: Selector Exhaustion
References: <10108100454 DOT AA13597 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <001901c12239$16e71dd0$0a02a8c0 AT acceleron>
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

> From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 17:41:14 +1000
> 
> I slightly modifed Charles patch so that the changes were only executed if
> on a Win NT / 2000 / XP machine, this way I can also use the same LIBC and
> code on the Win 98 box.

??? Why would the original code prevent you from using the same libc
on all systems?

I'd rather avoid local changes to code we discuss and approve, lest we
lose track of where did each change work, and how well.  I'm already
dizzy, what with all the issues involved and different versions of
binaries tested on all kinds of systems.

> gcc ... -c dmpl.c
> Exiting due to signal SIGSEGV
> General Protection Fault at eip=000013f5
> eax=00330901 ebx=00000033 ecx=00330000 edx=001a8338 esi=00000187
> edi=018719c0
> ebp=6269091e esp=00000740 program=D:\dj204\BIN\gcc.exe
> cs: sel=5fe7  base=021e0000  limit=001affff
> ds: sel=5fef  base=021e0000  limit=001affff
> es: sel=5fef  base=021e0000  limit=001affff
> fs: sel=5fbf  base=0001cf30  limit=0000ffff
> gs: sel=0000
> ss: sel=5fbf  base=0001cf30  limit=0000ffff
> App stack: [000ad608..0002d608

Looks like the stack is smashed (EBP actually looks like ASCII text).
Did you try to stubedit gcc.exe to a larger stack?

Also, the EIP value seems right at the program start.  Can you see
where it is, exactly?

Charles, is it possible that a stack somehow was not allocated?