2017-12-13 23:56 CET

View Issue Details Jump to Notes ]
IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0000216Cheat Enginepublic2013-01-30 19:21
ReporterCsimbi 
Assigned ToDark Byte 
PrioritynormalSeveritymajorReproducibilityalways
StatusresolvedResolutionfixed 
Summary0000216: CE 6.2 pointer rescan bug
DescriptionI am not sure how the "Base pointer must be in range" is supposed to work.
These are the things that I tried - and all addresses disappear. Always.

I picked a random address for my tests (so at least one address would remain if it worked): process.exe+15AFDF8, which points to 1A748718.

Test 0000001.
I tick "Base pointer must be in range".
Range: 15AFD00 15AFE00
I click ok.
Error: "$" is an invalid integer.
I figured that it expects an address (which it should not).
I enter the address 1A748718.
I click ok.
All pointers disappear.

Test 0000002.
"Base pointer must be in range" is still ticked.
Range: "process.exe"+15AFD00 "process.exe"+15AFE00
The address 1A748718 is still there.
I hit ok.
All pointers disappear.

Test 0000003.
"Base pointer must be in range" is still ticked.
Range: 19AFD00 "process.exe"+19AFE00
The address 1A748718 is still there.
I hit ok.
All pointers disappear.

Test 0000004.
Save as Test#1, but I check "Filter out invalid addresses".
All pointers disappear.

Test 0000005.
Save as Test#2, but I check "Filter out invalid addresses".
All pointers disappear.

Test 0000006.
Save as Test#3, but I check "Filter out invalid addresses".
All pointers disappear.

After all these tests, the random pointer I picked is still valid and points to the same address and value (so, we can rule it the pointer not pointing to the right place).

It never worked. I might be doing it wrong. If so, please let me know.
I would need this feature because no matter what I tried, there are way too many pointers left (all are valid even after process restart/reboot) while I had an educated guess about the base range.

While at it, the TAB order on that dialog is wrong; please fix.

Thank you!
Additional InformationReported earlier here:
http://forum.cheatengine.org/viewtopic.php?t=557610
TagsNo tags attached.
Attached Files

-Relationships
+Relationships

-Notes

~0000460

Dark Byte (developer)

Last edited: 2013-01-26 02:00

I can not reproduce this. I tried on the tutorial and it functions properly
And the only proper range was 2

~0000462

mgr_inz_Player (reporter)

Last edited: 2013-01-26 04:36

Will check that too. Give me few minutes... (r.1644)

Edit: Can't reproduce it too.

Tried both ways, "base pointer must be in range":
module+offset & module+offset
and
address & address

and those too:
module+offset1 & module+offset2
and
address1 & address2


where:
offset1 = offset - 500
offset2 = offset + 500
address1 = address - 500
address2 = address + 500
(calculations made in calc.exe)


Those too:
module+offset-500 & module+offset+500
and
address-500 & address+500
(CE makes calculations)

Everything works.

~0000463

Csimbi (reporter)

You're using the public 6.2, right?
All right, I'll recheck again.

~0000464

mgr_inz_Player (reporter)

Last edited: 2013-01-26 04:00

Well, CE revision from (I don't remember number) Nov-Dec 2012,
then CE rev.1551
and now I'm using rev.1644. (I wrote "r.1644" before)

All of them work flawlessly with "Base pointer must be in range" option. (rescan)

Just get newest revision, compile it and test.

~0000467

Csimbi (reporter)

Well, that's not so simple anymore as my testbed is long gone.

I guess I will just take your word for it, feel free to close this then.
Thanks!
+Notes

-Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
2013-01-26 01:22 Csimbi New Issue
2013-01-26 01:59 Dark Byte Note Added: 0000460
2013-01-26 02:00 Dark Byte Note Edited: 0000460
2013-01-26 02:27 mgr_inz_Player Note Added: 0000462
2013-01-26 02:28 mgr_inz_Player Note Edited: 0000462
2013-01-26 02:33 mgr_inz_Player Note Edited: 0000462
2013-01-26 02:36 mgr_inz_Player Note Edited: 0000462
2013-01-26 02:38 mgr_inz_Player Note Edited: 0000462
2013-01-26 03:21 Csimbi Note Added: 0000463
2013-01-26 04:00 mgr_inz_Player Note Added: 0000464
2013-01-26 04:00 mgr_inz_Player Note Edited: 0000464
2013-01-26 04:36 mgr_inz_Player Note Edited: 0000462
2013-01-26 16:40 Csimbi Note Added: 0000467
2013-01-30 19:21 Dark Byte Status new => resolved
2013-01-30 19:21 Dark Byte Resolution open => fixed
2013-01-30 19:21 Dark Byte Assigned To => Dark Byte
+Issue History