sdb anomoly: a bug or not?
David F. Carlson
dave at micropen
Thu May 25 05:20:46 AEST 1989
Under SV/386r3.0 sdb(1) used to allow a c(ontinue) over a pause(2) after
an interrupt was received. (In other words, an interrupt while in a pause
could be skipped and execution resumed *after* the pause.) Under SV/386r3.2,
sdb(1) appears to *restart* the pause(2). Is there a workaround to
allow one to pass the pause? Is this a bug or a feature? :-)
--
David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc.
micropen!dave at ee.rochester.edu
"The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll
More information about the Comp.bugs.sys5
mailing list