sdb anomoly: a bug or not?

Article View: comp.bugs.sys5

Article #1131

#1131

From: David F. Carlson
Date: Wed, 24 May 1989 19:20

11 lines
885 bytes

Under SV/386r3.0 sdb(1) used to allow a c(ontinue) over a pause(2) after
an interrupt was received.  (In other words, an interrupt while in a pause 
could be skipped and execution resumed *after* the pause.)  Under SV/386r3.2,
sdb(1) appears to *restart* the pause(2).  Is there a workaround to
allow one to pass the pause?  Is this a bug or a feature? :-)  

-- 
David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc.
micropen!dave@ee.rochester.edu

"The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll

Technical Details

Message-ID: <724@micropen>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ur-valhalla!micropen!dave

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ur-valhalla!micropen!dave
From: dave@micropen (David F. Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.bugs.sys5
Subject: sdb anomoly:  a bug or not?
Keywords: sdb 3.0 changed in 3.2
Message-ID: <724@micropen>
Date: 24 May 89 19:20:46 GMT
Organization: Micropen Dirent Writing Systems, Pittsford, NY
Lines: 11