Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 11:30:05 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
cc: salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: GDB, DOS 6.22, CWSDPMI and Interrupts
In-Reply-To: <9912301605.AA15338@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000102112951.1710g-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> Actually, I think a better fix would be to modify DBGCOM to always
> enable interrupts on the stack before the IRET ...  That's probably
> not exactly right either but it's probably a lot closer!

Okay, a referendum: how many people out there debug code that disables
interrupts?

For this to matter, you need to put a breakpoint in, or single-step
through, such code.  How many people do that?