Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!crdgw1!antarctica!davidsen
From: davidsen@antarctica.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: DR-DOS
Keywords: DRDOS,comments
Message-ID: <10223@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 24 Jul 90 15:52:38 GMT
References: <1121@fang.dsto.oz> <8502@ur-cc.UUCP> <1129@fang.dsto.oz>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Lines: 22


In article <1129@fang.dsto.oz>, hjh@aeg.dsto.oz.au (H.J.Harvey-AEG) writes:

|> The SID86 debugger is supplied.  I consider this to be a much better
low level
|> debugger than DEBUG.  It has PASS points which are ideal for
debugging code  
|> which may branch or pass through a particular point many times.  Sure, it is
|> not a replacement for debuggers like CODEVIEW, but you don't need to be an
|> expert in SID86 before you use it!

  I have to agree that when I used SID (CP/M-86 days) it was far better
than DEBUG. Never having used codeview with an assembly program, I can't
say if it is good, bad, or indifferent. It's nice for C code, and I
haven't written any assembler in years.

  Nor do I intend to.
--
Bill Davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com, uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
  GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY
  Moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 386users mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is it's own reward" -me