Andrew andrew@transgaming.com writes:
This fixes a bug in ReadProcessMemory and WriteProcessMemory, and rearranges some of the code. (In particular, all the code that knows that ptrace works in ints has been contained to server/ptrace.c.)
What bug is it fixing?
I'm not sure the reorganisation is a good idea; it seems less efficient, less portable, and AFAICS broken for accesses of less than an int size.
On Thu, 2001-12-06 at 19:09, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Andrew andrew@transgaming.com writes:
This fixes a bug in ReadProcessMemory and WriteProcessMemory, and rearranges some of the code. (In particular, all the code that knows that ptrace works in ints has been contained to server/ptrace.c.)
What bug is it fixing?
If I recall correctly, an app was reading some memory, modifying it and writing it back. The written data was shifted by a small (< 4) number of bytes, so I blamed the alignment/masking code.
I'm not sure the reorganisation is a good idea; it seems less efficient, less portable, and AFAICS broken for accesses of less than an int size.
Ok. I will try to dredge up the exact call sequence and parameters that demonstrate the problem. I won't have time to develop a new patch, but hopefully someone else will.
Andrew Lewycky andrew@transgaming.com
Andrew andrew@transgaming.com writes:
If I recall correctly, an app was reading some memory, modifying it and writing it back. The written data was shifted by a small (< 4) number of bytes, so I blamed the alignment/masking code.
Quite possible, this code has changed quite a bit with the server API changes.
Ok. I will try to dredge up the exact call sequence and parameters that demonstrate the problem. I won't have time to develop a new patch, but hopefully someone else will.
Sure, if you have a trace showing the bug I will fix it.
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Andrew