Hi,
Hang on. The implementation of guarding stuff is there just to catch
these problems (on currrent platforms) _before_ they lead to wierd bugs
in old platforms. So this shouldn't be a problem apart from relating the
bug reports from old and current platforms.
Thanx,
Jaap
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Thomas Boehne wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 April 2006 09:26, Guy Harris wrote:
> > Perhaps Microsoft lied:
> >
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/memory/base/virtualprotect.asp
> >
> > sure doesn't seem to imply that its functionality is limited on Windows
> > OT (95/98/Me) other than not working in the shared region, but allocated
> > stuff shouldn't be there.
>
> Well, on
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/memory/base/memory_protection_constants.asp
>
> they list some more restrictions for using VirtualProtect on Windows
> 9x. But PAGE_NOACCESS should be OK.
>
> > Perhaps, instead of aborting if VirtualProtect() doesn't work, Ethereal
> > should just drive on and live with the lack of extra protection.
>
> Running Ethereal without VirtualProtect on 9x might be OK, but I guess
> it will sooner or later lead to crashes and bug reports that we cannot
> reproduce/fix, since hardly any developer seems to have a development
> environment on such a machine.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
>
> --
> J?ger Computergesteuerte Messtechnik GmbH
> Thomas B?hne
> Rheinstra?e 2-4
> 64653 Lorsch
> Tel.: +49-6251-9632-0
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ethereal-dev mailing list
> Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
>
>