From: DougEleveld <deleveld AT dds DOT nl>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: cwsdpmi problem
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 18:39:42 +0200
Organization: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <3613B04E.F9177D79@dds.nl>
References: <Pine DOT GSO DOT 3 DOT 96 DOT 980930103430 DOT 17929C-100000 AT rtbsci146s> <36131AC7 DOT 53E8 AT post DOT tau DOT ac DOT il>
NNTP-Posting-Host: client36-119.oprit.rug.nl
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Tal Lavi wrote:
> 
> Olivier Perron wrote:
> > >
> > you certainly dereference a null pointer.
> > Look at your code where you could use a null pointer.
> >
> > Olivier.
> 
> are you sure?
> why does it work fine with the win95 dpmi server?

Because Win95 lets you dereference NULL pointers.  The protection that
CWSDPMI gives you is much better than the Win96 dpmi server.  I don't
know if it's true or not, but the suspicion is that if Win95 trapped
these problems, then some win95 software wouldn't work, so thay have to
leave it alone.

Doug Eleveld