Morning Wolfgang,
On 30/05/13 17:11, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
Because you can't define "something went belly up in an exceptional
manner" ?
Sorry, feeble attempt at humour. What I meant was something causing the
processor to raise an exception. It would be nice to see something along
the lines of:
* What exception took place;
* Where, as closely as possible, it took place;
* Register dump;
* Possibly, the instruction that caused all the trouble. If possible.
I realise that it's never going to be even close to 100% helpful, but
every little helps.
Example : When developping SMSQmulator, and debugging some 68K
instruction code, I'd often get things wrong.
> ....
So, this is a real belly up, right?
Yes, that's a proper belly up.
Err, but running things like some C programs (e.g. Bogomips) under
SMSQmulator always produces one "illegal instruction" error.
I never knew that.
Pretty serious belly up? Nope, this is done on purpose by these programs
to find out on what kind of processor they run. it's a strange but legal
way of doing things...
That's my "learned something new" for today then. Thanks. I presume they
execute an ILLEGAL instruction ($4AFB I think?) and trap it somehow?
The only processor test I know of is move.l a7,-(a7) - some processors
stack the current A7 and others the decremented A7. (Can't remember
which though!)
I didn't know that some C code executed an ILLEGAL.
There is no easy way to define when a program goes haywire.
I remember that some old games would completely take over the machine,
overwriting many of the normal QDOS datastructures etc... Again that
could be considered an indication of a program gone bonkers...
Yes, I agree, that is bonkers.
Even under SMSQmulator, which has a monitor built in, it's difficult to
find out exactly when something goes wrong (sorry for the pitch).
No worries, I like it! And yes, it's not always useful, but it can be
useful. That's better than never being useful surely?
I'm afraid that this will remain a dream, along with, for example,
longer filenames etc...
Ha! Don't start me on filenames. I still don't understand why the file
flp1_test_program_test_bin needs its full path name in every segment of
the path.
flp1_ has test_program_test_bin.
flp1_test_ also has test_program_test_bin.
flp1_test_program_ also has test_program_test_bin.
And so on. Surely:
flp1_ needs only test_.
flp1_test_ needs only program_.
flp1_test_program_ needs only test_bin.
That way, even with only 36 characters allocated for a file name, each
directory level would allow 36 characters.
Sorry, I got started! End rant! :-)
Cheers,
Norm.
--
Norman Dunbar
Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd
Registered address:
Thorpe House
61 Richardshaw Lane
Pudsey
West Yorkshire
United Kingdom
LS28 7EL
Company Number: 05132767
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
