From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MPS: Forwording symbols Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:20:07 +0300 Message-ID: <86o77yp0yw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87jziod6yc.fsf@gmail.com> <874j9rcuf6.fsf@gmail.com> <87y173bda9.fsf@gmail.com> <87plsfbcd5.fsf@gmail.com> <86cyoeqvfc.fsf@gnu.org> <87frta9pgf.fsf@gmail.com> <86v826p346.fsf@gnu.org> <86r0cup24x.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11385"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: eller.helmut@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gerd =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=F6llmann?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 18 20:20:44 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sJdRk-0002hh-ET for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:20:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sJdRO-0002c5-23; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:20:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sJdRL-0002bh-8H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:20:19 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sJdRE-0005Va-Hq; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:20:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=3SZU2PAXaYHnqbGxyI/vZR0GmWD+UwbiDa7SdQ/5cw4=; b=SRL8eRjWp1xiVB4JgDWS +nxYO/n3spUyizSLndi755k8AMQkBChTlMCJugCEfyCS5UboeTvlQmbIa8Ev8ALT6QLMciEaLRjvg 17uazk5WGVEyS2wsbm0YEDWIPd91jN9IRloS0BgBfLUYEaWgJOX/8yrmkr9mS+m1OK7Xyp5q9V6Wy 5TWxQNJM10yS7bA4d2q7mBP7efCJKkFcrieGjJHd6PhG0YjXCoT4UvMLuoilqAeKG/2EWvYchYe/5 jSSBFR1rv06bgPlO3Fli409n2Km7FMExzxk7qNVJfd1lqw3+og9VreQsUS4hklABcxeBN8M1NfbXj mdiGxvhYLuveJQ==; In-Reply-To: (message from Gerd =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=F6llmann?= on Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:11:16 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:320257 Archived-At: > From: Gerd Möllmann > Cc: eller.helmut@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:11:16 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> IOW, the call to igc_postmortem itself hits assertion violation. > > > > Btw, the "unreachable" code in this case is this: > > > > void ProtSet(Addr base, Addr limit, AccessSet mode) > > { > > DWORD newProtect; > > DWORD oldProtect; > > > > AVER(base < limit); > > AVER(base != 0); > > AVERT(AccessSet, mode); > > > > newProtect = PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE; > > if((mode & AccessWRITE) != 0) > > newProtect = PAGE_EXECUTE_READ; > > if((mode & AccessREAD) != 0) > > newProtect = PAGE_NOACCESS; > > > > if(VirtualProtect((LPVOID)base, (SIZE_T)AddrOffset(base, limit), > > newProtect, &oldProtect) == 0) > > NOTREACHED; <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > } > > > > It means that VirtualProtect failed. Since 'mode' is zero, it means > > the function was called to remove protection from the mmemory block, > > and it failed, probably because the specified memory region was out of > > the program's address space? > > FWIW, I don't think one can usefully continue execution after calling > igc_postmorten, one can only look around in memory and such. Here's what > the docs say: Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but the above is not an attempt to continue execution, it is part of the call to igc_postmortem itself. That call is the one which crashes, not the code that runs after that call returns.