Contrary to Per's comments, I am most grateful to the many people who
have posted helpful advice regarding my recent BASIC problems in
transferring some programs which I wrote many years ago from an Aurora,
SGC, QuBide machine to QPC2 on my PCs. I am still investigating the
disappearance of EXTRAS loaded from my BOOT program - a situation which
only occurs in QPC2 (not on the Aurora machines). The offered solutions
to my query about being able to step through the program are, as has
been noted on this list, very slow and time consuming but I have
attempted them in the hopes of identifying the error(s). In hindsight,
what I had in mind, was something more along the lines of the "trace"
facility found in PSION Archive and Xchange (archive) which I use
extensively. From advice offered by contributors on this list, I am
currently checking the full list of EXTRAS at various points in the
program to see if the missing ones all disappear together or a few at a
time at various points. I may well have a few VERY BASIC questions
regarding the use of EXTRAS to do this, later today. Having said all
this, I have to accept that the programs concerned do work well (the
first time round) and it is only on the occasion when having closed a
program I need to use it again that I find that without a full
power-down and reBOOT the programs will not run due to missing
extensions. I thought that once loaded (LRESPRd), toolkits etc remained
loaded until the machine was powered-down. Do I have this BASIC premise
correct?
Thank you all for your help and guidance.
Regards,
John Gilpin.
P Witte wrote:
giggler wrote:
On 14 Nov 2009, at 16:04, P Witte wrote:
The way the question was formulated, a "line by line" stepping
through a program - specifically, a boot script - was wanted. This
hardly adds to the responses already given, although its fine if
only a few lines want monitoring.
You can use QMON to step through an assembly program. But this is
> usually too time-consuming. It is better to go quickly to a
> specific place and step through a few instructions there. In
> aBASIC program it would be equally futile to examine the
> results of every single instruction. I think that it is the
> ability to examine each instruction which is wanted. I have
> certainly once or twice used my Puse after each instruction
> in a short stretch of code.
Little point in us discussing it as the original petitioner seems to
have found what he wanted and moved on to better things. Or perhaps
hes still single-stepping through some endless loop his boot script!
;o) In which case your arguments certainly win the day!
Per
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
