From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jan 13 03:15:41 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id DAA03637 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jan 1995 03:15:41 -0800 Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com [16.1.0.22]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id DAA03629 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 1995 03:15:38 -0800 Received: from rks32.pcs.dec.com by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA22282; Fri, 13 Jan 95 03:11:14 -0800 Received: by rks32.pcs.dec.com (Smail3.1.27.1 #16) id m0rSjju-0005PIC; Fri, 13 Jan 95 12:00 MEZ Message-Id: To: joerg_wunsch%uriah.sax.de@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com Subject: Re: using procfs for debugging Cc: hackers%freebsd.org@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com Reply-To: gj%pcs.dec.com@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 11:00:18 GMT From: "gj%pcs.dec.com@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com" Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk J"org writes: > Hmm, i'm not eager to dig into problems where i don't have a clue > of:-) Actually, i've already looked and found that this is easy and > not easy. Easy since there are already hooks (SETUP_ARBITRARY_FRAME), > not easy since it looks that it's a designer's decision by now whether > an architecture does require two args to the `frame' command or if a > single arg will suffice. So if we'd use SETUP_ARBITRARY_FRAME the way > it's used by now, we'll prohibit the traditional way the frame command > used to work... > > Did i overlook something? Good tip. I'll think of something, even if I have to introduce a "dyadframe" command :) The biggest problem is getting a good dump to test it on. Should have it done this weekend. Gary J.