Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 13:16:18 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Peculiar behavior of program.
In-Reply-To: <3b31a1ab.174354957@news.primus.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010621131404.9042C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Graaagh the Mighty wrote:

> On 19 Jun 2001 14:48:49 GMT, Hans-Bernhard Broeker
> <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de> sat on a tribble, which squeaked:
> 
> >> I won't have a problem once I can get a decent traceback. Why is it
> >> not generating the "call frame traceback EIPs"? And why does it crash
> >> Windows? A protected mode task should be utterly unable to bring the
> >> OS down, 
> >
> >"Should": yes. But reality shows that "should" rules are far too
> >seldomly paid any respect.  And 9x is a rather prominent example of
> >that, regrettably.
> 
> Yeah, but I don't get a decent traceback under cwsdpmi, either, so you
> can't blame *this* one on Bill Gates...

No, I blame it on you: it's your bug that caused a GPF inside CWSDPMI.
It is obvious that CWSDPMI cannot possibly print the traceback of your 
program, since it's a different program.

(When Hans-Bernhard talked about Windows, he meant your second question, 
not your first one.)