 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Now, how about that Windoze habit of saying "The program has
>> experienced an error and will be shut down. Do you want to send
>> debugging information?" What do you estimate the chances are that
>> *anybody* will do anything at all with the data thus sent? ;-)
>
> I have, on occasion, sent in reports like that, and had Microsoft reply
> with how to fix it. So obviously someone was paying attention to it.
Woah. Micro$oft talking to a paying customer... that's almost unheard
of. o_O
You must be very special...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:09:27 +0100, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> That's impressive. Usually these things work by inserting software
>>> interrupts into the code. (Or just software enumation of machine
>>> state...)
>> Nowadays, actually, they tend to play with the memory map to cause
>> traps to occur where you want to see things. Breakpoint when you write
>> a variable? Map the page the variable is in as read-only, then when the
>> trap happens, see if the instruction was pointing to the variable.
>
> Interesting. I thought (in C) all variables exist on the machine stack?
Not true, but even so, the stack is still memory.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>>> Nowadays, actually, they tend to play with the memory map to cause
>>> traps to occur where you want to see things. Breakpoint when you
>>> write a variable? Map the page the variable is in as read-only, then
>>> when the trap happens, see if the instruction was pointing to the
>>> variable.
>>
>> Interesting. I thought (in C) all variables exist on the machine stack?
>
> Not true, but even so, the stack is still memory.
Well true - but my point was more that the stack gets touched every 3
instructions or so, and setting traps on it would light up the system
like a festive season tree. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/12 04:25:
> Alain wrote:
>> Invisible nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/08 04:34:
>>> ...I'm beginning to think POV-Ray attracts crazy people... o_O
>> Not at all! Just peoples that are more curious than the norm ;) thus,
>> good learners and thinkerers. Probably, also, who have an IQ higher
>> than average.
>
> Well, maybe you guys do. Mine is only 103... :-(
It's above average ;)
An IQ of 100 is average by definition. Anything >100 is above average.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every
government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.
Thomas Jefferson
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 escribió:
>
> Woah. Micro$oft talking to a paying customer... that's almost unheard
> of. o_O
>
> You must be very special...
Or paying more.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>> Nowadays, actually, they tend to play with the memory map to cause
>> traps to occur where you want to see things. Breakpoint when you write
>> a variable? Map the page the variable is in as read-only, then when
>> the trap happens, see if the instruction was pointing to the variable.
>
> Interesting. I thought (in C) all variables exist on the machine stack?
Dunno. Often, the static variables (i.e., those with a lifetime that
matches the process) are allocated, well, statically. Whether it's part
of the stack that never gets popped or not isn't too relevant.
Anyway, so? The machine stack is in memory-mapped memory too, yes?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Well true - but my point was more that the stack gets touched every 3
> instructions or so, and setting traps on it would light up the system
> like a festive season tree. ;-)
Nobody said it was an *efficient* way to do it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> Now, how about that Windoze habit of saying "The program has
>>> experienced an error and will be shut down. Do you want to send
>>> debugging information?" What do you estimate the chances are that
>>> *anybody* will do anything at all with the data thus sent? ;-)
>>
>> I have, on occasion, sent in reports like that, and had Microsoft
>> reply with how to fix it. So obviously someone was paying attention to
>> it.
>
> Woah. Micro$oft talking to a paying customer... that's almost unheard
> of. o_O
>
> You must be very special...
Um, no. It looks up the problem in the database and points you to the KB
article. Automated.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Interesting. I thought (in C) all variables exist on the machine stack?
>
> Dunno. Often, the static variables (i.e., those with a lifetime that
> matches the process) are allocated, well, statically. Whether it's part
> of the stack that never gets popped or not isn't too relevant.
When it comes to watching the CPU twiddle individual bits, *everything*
becomes relevant. (That's why it's such an inefficient way to debug
things...)
> Anyway, so? The machine stack is in memory-mapped memory too, yes?
Usually. ;-) (I understand there are designs where it isn't. Not that it
matters too much...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
> Invisible nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/12 04:25:
>> Alain wrote:
>>> Invisible nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/08 04:34:
>>>> ...I'm beginning to think POV-Ray attracts crazy people... o_O
>>> Not at all! Just peoples that are more curious than the norm ;) thus,
>>> good learners and thinkerers. Probably, also, who have an IQ higher
>>> than average.
>>
>> Well, maybe you guys do. Mine is only 103... :-(
> It's above average ;)
> An IQ of 100 is average by definition. Anything >100 is above average.
I guess the critical question is the SD...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
