Piotr Caban writes:
> It happens when native _resetstkoflw is called when there's little
> memory left on the stack. I don't know if there's any real application
> that is calling it in that case. I thought that it's incorrect to grow
> the stack size above stack limit anyway.
No, the stack limi
On 04/07/11 11:22, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Piotr Caban writes:
Without this patch there's following condition for stack growing:
if ((char *)page + page_size == NtCurrentTeb()->Tib.StackLimit)
NtCurrentTeb()->Tib.StackLimit = page;
If after growing the stack application protects the
Piotr Caban writes:
> Without this patch there's following condition for stack growing:
> if ((char *)page + page_size == NtCurrentTeb()->Tib.StackLimit)
> NtCurrentTeb()->Tib.StackLimit = page;
> If after growing the stack application protects the memory between
> StackLimit and StackLimit
On 04/07/11 11:00, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Piotr Caban writes:
It's not needed (I thought it may be not valid for whole stack). I'll
send fixed version.
There also should be "growing" instead of "shrinking" in commit
message. It was meant to point that it's possible to change StackLimit
mor
Piotr Caban writes:
> It's not needed (I thought it may be not valid for whole stack). I'll
> send fixed version.
>
> There also should be "growing" instead of "shrinking" in commit
> message. It was meant to point that it's possible to change StackLimit
> more then once without this patch.
I'm
On 04/07/11 10:24, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Piotr Caban writes:
@@ -1617,9 +1617,18 @@ BOOL virtual_handle_stack_fault( void *addr )
BYTE vprot = view->prot[((const char *)page - (const char
*)view->base)>> page_shift];
if (vprot& VPROT_GUARD)
{
+s
Piotr Caban writes:
> @@ -1617,9 +1617,18 @@ BOOL virtual_handle_stack_fault( void *addr )
> BYTE vprot = view->prot[((const char *)page - (const char
> *)view->base) >> page_shift];
> if (vprot & VPROT_GUARD)
> {
> +struct _TEB *teb = NtCurrentTeb();
>
