Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!seismo!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Does the 'dbx' debugger work?
Message-ID: <5179@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Jan-87 13:28:38 EST
Article-I.D.: mimsy.5179
Posted: Sat Jan 24 13:28:38 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Jan-87 05:44:24 EST
References: <735@cullvax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 20

I cannot say whether the Ultrix 1.2 dbx is broken.  But re:

In article <735@cullvax.UUCP> drw@cullvax.UUCP writes:
>Also, putting in stops or traces seems to slow execution by much more
>than I expect.

How much do you expect?

Adding `stop at' is easy.  Adding `stop when' or `trace' is hard.
`Stop at' is easy because a line translates to a particular machine
instruction address, and dbx can insert a breakpoint there.  `Stop
when' or `trace' is hard because the only way dbx can do this is
to single step every instruction, and check after each instruction
to see whether an appropriate change has occurred.

Basically, dbx needs better control over processes than is provided
by present kernels.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7690)
UUCP:	seismo!mimsy!chris	ARPA/CSNet:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu