Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekcrl!tekgvs!toma
From: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: DR-DOS
Keywords: DRDOS,comments
Message-ID: <7872@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Date: 25 Jul 90 17:24:10 GMT
References: <1121@fang.dsto.oz> <8502@ur-cc.UUCP> <1129@fang.dsto.oz> <10223@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Reply-To: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 20

In article <10223@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>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  
>  I have to agree that when I used SID (CP/M-86 days) it was far better
>than DEBUG.

I used SID for CP/M-80. There is an "equivalent" MS-DOS program, symdeb,
which came with the Microsoft Assembler before Codeview made its appearance.
It was symbolic and had pass points just like SID.

There are many cases where symdeb is superior to codeview or turbo debug
(smaller, ability to ctty, oriented towards assembler code) and I use it
far more often than the other debuggers, although I no longer use the
Microsoft Assembler.

Tom Almy
toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com
Standard Disclaimers Apply