Welcome to Emulationworld

Forum Index | FAQ | New User | Login | Search

Make a New PostPrevious ThreadView All ThreadsNext ThreadShow in Flat Mode*

SubjectRe: fixed :) Reply to this message
Posted byTerry Bogard
Posted on01/28/04 12:53 PM

> Your reasoning is right, but you have to remember that memory protection cannot
> usually happen at a byte-sized granularity, so you'll often be able to overwrite
> a few extra bytes without anyone complaining, and that's not good.
> Memory protection will typically take place on page-sized (4KB) or greater
> intervals. X86 has a lot of crazy MMU features but I think Windows probably just
> uses paging for the most part.
> I think you were compiling in debug mode which means MSVC uses code that
> initializes uninitialized memory regions with a certain magic number (0xFD?) and
> at the end, checks to see if you have written out of bounds by seeing if
> everything is 0xFD where it should be. I could be wrong, but I think I've heard
> this somewhere and it seems consistent with what's happening to you.

I asked google "debug build 0xFD memory" and google said:

Things one doesn't know without looking around :P

Entire Thread
Subject  Posted byPosted On
*weird c++ destructor behaviour  Terry Bogard01/27/04 12:25 PM
.*fixed :)  Terry Bogard01/28/04 06:33 AM
..*Re: fixed :)  Bart T.01/28/04 11:10 AM
....Re: fixed :)  Terry Bogard01/28/04 12:53 PM
.*Re: weird c++ destructor behaviour  ElSemi01/28/04 04:26 AM
.*Re: weird c destructor behaviour  finaldave01/27/04 06:13 PM
..*Re: weird c destructor behaviour  smf01/28/04 03:18 AM