From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1Clobi-0008As-BA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:20:18 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1Clobe-0008AB-GJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:20:17 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Clobe-0008A1-Cv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:20:14 -0500
Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=main.gmane.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CloQF-0000PB-6m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:08:27 -0500
Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1CloQE-0003i9-00
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:08:26 +0100
Received: from inet.ycc.ru ([217.148.52.177])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:08:26 +0100
Received: from patrakov by inet.ycc.ru with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:08:26 +0100
From: "Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@ums.usu.ru>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:09:32 +0500
Message-ID: <cre4fv$at9$1@sea.gmane.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Something is probably wrong with "int 3"
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Hello, I suspect the following to be a bug in qemu.

Earlier in the Firefox-related thread, I attached the crash report from
DrWatson. It contained the following lines at the end:

function: DbgBreakPoint
        77fa144b cc               int     3
FAULT-> 77fa144c c3               ret

However, examples of similar faults from Microsoft Knowledge Base,

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/252837/EN-US/
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/194594/EN-US/
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/189474/EN-US/

clearly state that the fault is at the "int 3" instruction, not at "ret".
Can anyone explain this difference? Is this a bug in qemu?


-- 
Alexander E. Patrakov