Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!master!kit!waynet
From: waynet@kit.tek.com (Wayne Turner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: Stack Overflow! tc++
Message-ID: <902@masterCNA.TEK.COM>
Date: 6 Mar 91 18:59:36 GMT
Sender: news@masterCNA.TEK.COM
Reply-To: waynet@kit.tek.com (Wayne Turner)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond, Oregon
Lines: 25

Subject: Re: Stack Overflow! tc++

In article <1991Mar6.135439.22464@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pts@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Paul T. Shannon) writes:
>I have a turbo c++ bug that perhaps some one has seen before.  I suspect
>...
>If however, I turn the stack checking off (from the compiler option menu),
>the program runs fine....except that I'm really nervous about what sins
>might be hidden behind the curtains.
>
>Has anyone seen a bug like this?  Any suggestions?

Borland Tech Support admitted to me about 6 months ago that this was
a bug in their compiler. Do *not* use the stack overflow switch for
the compiler.  In tracing through disassembled code I discovered
that in some routines the prolog code that checks for stack overflow was
correct and in others it was wrong (instead of using _stklen for the
comparison it was using the address of a static object defined higher
up in the source module!!). This occurred in version 1.0 of TC++ and
I'm not sure if it was fixed in 1.01. I haven't seen anything in the
un-official 1.0 bug lists (posted on the net) to indicate that it was fixed.

I'm sure that many people have been hit by this bug and that much
development time has gone down the drain over it.

Borland, are you listening?