Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:39:52 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <3405-Thu28Jun2001193951+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <3b3b4948.212143163@news.primus.ca> (invalid@erehwon.invalid)
Subject: Re: Peculiar behavior of program.
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010626161231 DOT 17201D AT is> <3b3b4948 DOT 212143163 AT news DOT primus DOT ca>
Note-from-DJ: This may be spam
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

> From: invalid AT erehwon DOT invalid (Graaagh the Mighty)
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:14:43 GMT
> 
> >No.  The DPMI host always gets the first chance to look at any
> >exceptional condition.
> 
> That makes it responsible for giving the best data it can in every
> situation then.

Yes; and CWSDPMI did just that: you've got the EIP where your program
crashed.  That's a lot.

> >Any number of things.  It could simply load some value into SS in
> >inline assembly.  Or call int86x with wrong arguments.  Or installe a
> >real-mode callback with wrong parameters.
> 
> My code does nothing of the sort as written.

I didn't say it did; I've just shown a few examples to demonstrate how
easy it is.

> All I want is the damned traceback, or
> other useful debugging information. All I want is that if I compile
> and run protected-mode code, it might produce bogus output, and it
> might even bomb with an application fault, but it won't reboot the
> machine, hang the OS, or do anything else outside of its PM sandbox.
> Is that really too much to ask? Sheesh.

It turns out that in your case, it _is_ too much to ask.