Re: [Freedos-user] Not sure is it possible - but maybe I'm missing something?
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 03:33:29PM +, Bret Johnson wrote: > FWIW, I prefer NASM myself also. I started out using A86/A386 a long > time ago (before NASM and FASM even existed in a useful form) but my > source code eventually got too big for A86 to handle. A86 doesn't take > advantage of extended or expanded memory or protected mode so it can't > handle large or complicated source files, plus it's not free. [..] Thanks. Learning how to use these tools themselves will take some fair share of my time, that's why I'm curious to know opinion of more experienced ones. > Also FWIW, I still prefer the D86/D386 Debugger (though even it has its > quirks). The Debugger is at least as, if not more, important as > the Assembler itself. I read very good opinions about Watcom's debugger (WD) - from Open Watcom package - but not yet tried it by myself -- regards, Zbigniew ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Not sure is it possible - but maybe I'm missing something?
On 2019-05-09 18:02 +0200, ZB wrote: > BTW: which macroassembler you prefer? I prefer NASM. The reason I initially forked lDebug was actually to keep its source in the NASM dialect. Also, I adjusted the (default) disassembly display to mostly match NASM's syntax. Regards, ecm ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Not sure is it possible - but maybe I'm missing something?
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:53:26PM +0200, C. Masloch wrote: > I needed something similar in my lDebug symbolic anyway, so I created a > quick patch to add a Y command in my fork of FreeDOS's DEBUG. You give > it a filename (LFN or SFN, use double quote marks if to escape blanks) > and it pushes the file onto an internal stack. The script file should > not include a Q command (since that quits the debugger entirely as it is). > > I uploaded a build at https://ulukai.org/ecm/ldebug-64117aa565dd.zip -- > The repo is available at > https://bitbucket.org/ecm/ldebug/src/64117aa565dde7183edcbd87f1a8c4896f71814a Thanks a lot. :) BTW: which macroassembler you prefer? -- regards, Zbigniew ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Not sure is it possible - but maybe I'm missing something?
Hello,
On at 2019-05-05 18:16 +0200, ZB wrote:
> For testing small snippets of ML code "debug" is quite enough. But the
> disadvantage is that when I try to script it ("debug using files like this example:
>
> a 100
> mov ax,10
> [...some other ML code...]
> [...some other ML code...]
> [...some other ML code...]
> [empty line]
> [...more "debug" commands...]
>
> ..it works just fine but it always returns to DOS prompt (I believe it
> always happen when it detects end of "script" file). Yes, I can save the
> snippet as binary this way before it leaves debug, but maybe there's a way
> to stay in debug's "shell"?
I needed something similar in my lDebug symbolic anyway, so I created a
quick patch to add a Y command in my fork of FreeDOS's DEBUG. You give
it a filename (LFN or SFN, use double quote marks if to escape blanks)
and it pushes the file onto an internal stack. The script file should
not include a Q command (since that quits the debugger entirely as it is).
I uploaded a build at https://ulukai.org/ecm/ldebug-64117aa565dd.zip --
The repo is available at
https://bitbucket.org/ecm/ldebug/src/64117aa565dde7183edcbd87f1a8c4896f71814a
Regards,
ecm
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] Not sure is it possible - but maybe I'm missing something?
For testing small snippets of ML code "debug" is quite enough. But the
disadvantage is that when I try to script it ("debug https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
