[not starting another thread, although this is a new is a new problem,
since it's related]
at least with the current code (commit b37deb6), this doesn't step into for
loops.
at /home/andrew/.julia/BlockCipherSelfStudy/src/RC5.jl:170
169 # at this point we know k (s[2]) except for msb (m)
--> 170 @bp
171 for s2::W in (k, k+m)
debug:170> n
at /home/andrew/.julia/BlockCipherSelfStudy/src/RC5.jl:171
170 @bp
--> 171 for s2::W in (k, k+m)
172 # if we know s[2], set b0+s[2]=0, b1+s[2]=0xf..f,
a0=0, a1=-1
debug:171> s
0 cd -> 62 62
ff ff -> 53 53
cf e1 -> 1d 1d
0 cd -> 62 62
ff ff -> 53 53
9f 1f -> 53 53
at /home/andrew/.julia/BlockCipherSelfStudy/src/RC5.jl:191
190 end
--> 191 error("failed to find solution")
192 end
debug:191>
similarly with "n". surely i don't need to repeat @debug in front of the
"for"?
(sorry if still confused),
andrew
On Sunday, 22 December 2013 12:18:49 UTC-3, Toivo Henningsson wrote:
>
> All code wrapped in @debug is instrumented. You should definitely be able
> to instrument it by wrapping each function that you are interested in with
> @debug. It might also work e.g. to wrap the whole contents of a module
> inside @debug begin ... end
