From: Jason Green <news AT jgreen4 DOT fsnet DOT co DOT uk>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Windows ME and DJGPP
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:38:08 +0000
Organization: Customer of Energis Squared
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <qui57ts29nkob9g12f7rc2pual2hn501c6@4ax.com>
References: <20010120205730 DOT 25849 DOT 00000491 AT ng-fd1 DOT aol DOT com> <3a6b7917 DOT 10793503 AT news DOT sci DOT fi> <3A6CB71F DOT 8B4E86C9 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <94k3dc$lf9$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE> <slrn96u191 DOT 2cl DOT rpolzer AT rebounce DOT rpolzer-lx> <94pm3k$1qf$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE> <slrn970p9v DOT 28f DOT rpolzer AT rebounce DOT rpolzer-lx> <94rrk4$sro$1 AT antares DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se> <slrn973r3m DOT 1vo DOT rpolzer AT rebounce DOT rpolzer-lx> <9003-Sat27Jan2001104054+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <slrn9758nt DOT kg DOT rpolzer AT rebounce DOT rpolzer-lx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-206.vanadium.dialup.pol.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news7.svr.pol.co.uk 980602706 30227 62.136.22.206 (27 Jan 2001 13:38:26 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Jan 2001 13:38:26 GMT
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT theplanet DOT net
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

rpolzer AT web DOT de (Rudolf Polzer) wrote:

> But I just also tested a simple test program:
> 
> void main()
> {
>  char *p = 0;
>  *p = 'X';
> }
> 
> which compiles (with a warning about main being void) 

It compiles cleanly like this:

int main(void)
{
 char *p = 0;
 *p = 'X';
 
 return 0;
}

> and crashes with a
> SIGSEGV at the correct address. I see a GPF, but this is still enough
> information because of the correct line numbers.

I only see a SIGSEGV in real-mode DOS, not in Windows 95...

> And I do not think clean code can contain a line which can produce many
> errors that result in SIGSEGV but gives no hint about it.

Try stepping up the warnings you have enabled.  I don't think it's
possible for gcc to flag bugs like in the above example but it might
show up some other problem with your code.