[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
Title: | DEBUG |
Notice: | Updated locations for reporting QARs -- see note 834.1 |
Moderator: | LOWFAT::DIETER |
|
Created: | Fri Jan 24 1986 |
Last Modified: | Wed Jun 04 1997 |
Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Number of topics: | 1868 |
Total number of notes: | 8200 |
1835.0. "DEBUG VAX V7.0 STEP w PASCAL does not work" by CSC32::D_SANFORD () Fri Feb 07 1997 13:56
OpenVMS VAX DEBUG Version V7.0-000
OpenVMS VAX V7.0
Simular to problem reported in TURRIS::DEBUG, note 1829.*.
In this case if we initialize a variable and then make a function
call, the debugger will no longer be able to STEP.
If you issue "DBG> SET BREAK %LINE 14" it will break at this
line; otherwise it just runs until the end of the application on
the STEP.
If you feel this is the same as the previous problem please yet
me know; otherwise I'll need to raise another priority 2 CLD as
the workaround is not sufficient.
Regards, Drew Sanford
Customer Support Center
RE: C970121-4247
program test_debug (input,output);
var
line : varying [255] of char;
begin
{ If you remove the next line the debugger will not fail, not sure }
{ what affect 'line := 'testing'' has. But after this assignment }
{ if you execute any function the debugger will just continue as if }
{ you entered DBG> GO }
line := 'testing';
writeln ('Use DBG> STEP');
writeln (substr(line,1,7));
writeln ('You should not see this line without a DBG> STEP');
end.
$ run test
OpenVMS VAX DEBUG Version V7.0-000
%DEBUG-I-INITIAL, Language: PASCAL, Module: TEST_DEBUG
DBG> s
stepped to TEST_DEBUG\%LINE 11
11: line := 'testing';
DBG> s
stepped to TEST_DEBUG\%LINE 12
12: writeln ('Use DBG> STEP');
DBG> s
Use DBG> STEP
stepped to TEST_DEBUG\%LINE 13
13: writeln (substr(line,1,7));
DBG> s
testing
You should not see this line without a DBG> STEP
%DEBUG-I-EXITSTATUS, is '%SYSTEM-S-NORMAL, normal successful completion'
DBG> Exit
T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
1835.1 | | LOWFAT::DIETER | | Fri Feb 07 1997 14:28 | 5 |
|
same problem as 1829. please discuss in that note.
thanks,
Mary
|