Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 16:21:19 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
cc: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Re[6]: emacs under w2k
In-Reply-To: <80244689394.20020519125021@softhome.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020519161826.18913A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Sun, 19 May 2002, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> > As for setting a breakpoint by address, did you remember to prepend an 
> > asterisk to the address, like this:
> 
> >         (gdb) b *0x1252
> 
> Yes I did.

So what does it tell us about the other type of crash, where you also set 
the breakpoint like above?  Do we have any reason to believe the 
breakpoint worked, and the fact it was never hit is indeed an evidence 
that the crash happens inside the lcall'ed 16-bit helper code?  Because 
if setting the breakpoint doesn't work, the crash could be anywhere after 
lcall as well.

I guess if you try to set breakpoints by address in other places, and 
those breakpoints do trigger, then we could trust the results of your 
other session.