Date:	Mon, 6 Feb 1995 12:54:30 -0500 (EST)
From:	Long Doan <ldoan1 AT osf1 DOT gmu DOT edu>
To:	Bill Davidson <bdavidson AT ra DOT isisnet DOT com>
Cc:	ld AT netrix DOT com, djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Subject:	Re: Ladybug

On Mon, 6 Feb 1995, Bill Davidson wrote:

> Hi:
> Just a few comments/questions on ldbg100.
> I just got the program, read (skimmed) the manual and readme files, and 
> tried it.  Very nice, quite a change from gdb or edebug32!  Nice to see 
> 80x87 support, which gdb lacks.
Thanks.
> Q: Is there a way to move panes around on the screen; eg., I would like 
> to have the npx and code panes open at the same time so I can see code 
> and fp results as it executes?  I can't seem to find anything like this 
> in the docs.

I will probably add windowing in the next (???) release of ladybug, but 
currently you can't do that.
 
> There was no ed32-dpm in the distribution I got.  I don't need it since I 

Ladybug failed to dereference the environment pointer (go32 version 1.1x 
doesn't pass the environment to the debugger, so ladybug has to "borrow"
the debuggee's environtment.) and stat () failed under DPMI (it 
called getenv() to find TIMEZONE, and crashed.) That's why there is no 
dpmi version of the debugger in the release. I'm currently working on 
getting the debugger to be DPMI compatible. The 0xe... references and 
stat () crashes have been solved, but the problem of getting the 
environment remains. 

> ../paging.h since they were in the current dir ($DJGPP/go32/fs), not in 
> the parent dir.

  The ought to be unzipped into the parrent dir only to rebuild go32, but 
the problem is go32's sources changed with the maintanace releases...

> As I said, I don't need the dpmi version, so this is no biggie, I just 
> thought you might like to know since someone might need it and not be 
> able to build it and it's not in the package.

It seems like gcc tried to use the NPU that your machine doesn't have. 
You might try to use the emulation package (emu387???) to fix that problem.
I have no problem rebuilding ladybug.

> memory was about to be consumed when cc1/make crashed.  I run a 386SX 
> with 4 Meg RAM :-(  -- soon to be upgraded!  I can see that fullscr.c is 
> a pretty big file, but I have plenty of free disk space (about 250MB) and I 
> thought gcc (or cc1) would just page to disk and be slow, not break.

  I rebuilt ladybug (and ladydpmi) on my 386SX16, 4MB, and 11M of free HD 
space. The rebuild went fine (except that it's "quite" slow (It took me 
almost 20 mins to rebuild the whole thing.) :-<

Long.
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Long Doan                          ldoan1 AT osf1 DOT gmu DOT edu |
|                                          ld AT netrix DOT com |
+--------------------------------------------------------+

- Raw text -