Message-ID: <000001c126bb$f7e98260$3d08e289@mpaul>
From: "Matthias Paul" <Matthias DOT Paul AT post DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
To: <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
References: <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 33 DOT 0108091937540 DOT 23591-100000 AT jedi DOT apana DOT org DOT au> <000c01c121b3$eb0c50c0$8708e289 AT mpaul> <2 DOT 07b7 DOT 82TX DOT GHV2Q2 AT belous DOT munic DOT msk DOT su> <000301c12597$8d4233a0$1d08e289 AT mpaul> <2 DOT 07b7 DOT ONXK DOT GI46Z7 AT belous DOT munic DOT msk DOT su>
Subject: Re: DEBUG issues (Was: Re: more on the batch file problem)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:32:32 +0200
Organization: University of Technology, RWTH Aachen, Germany
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id DAA20285
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

On 2001-08-15, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:

>>> Compatability issues: does DR-DOS DEBUG support INT#
>>> non separated from "INT"? Does it supports size modifier
> at any size?
> 
>      I mean "at any side".

Ah, now I understand... ;-)

>>>         mov [100],byte 0
>>>         mov word [100],0

You are right, this is rejected by DR-DOS DEBUG, although
according to the error message it seems that it be supported.
I will look into this when I find the time. Thanks for reporting.

>> See NWDOSTIP.TXT (MPDOSTIP.ZIP) for details.
> 
> Full URL, plz.

As always, see my signature:

 http://www.uni-bonn.de/~uzs180/mpdokeng.html

On

 http://www.uni-bonn.de/~uzs180/mplnkeng.html

you will find various download links for MPDOSTIP.ZIP
(sorry, I donīt know the actual links to the files
by heart).

>> I do not think this will change, because even if
>> MS-DOS DEBUG allows this, itīs invalid syntax and
>> may cause problems when extending support for new processors.
> 
> Which? I mean, which problems?

Well, I cannot look into the future, hence I cannot give you
an example. It is unlikely that Intel will add a new command
named "INT29", which we would have to distinguish from
"INT 29", but you can see the general picture...

Well, it would be difficult to change the current
implementation, but I will have a look into it as well.

> PS: Matthias, do you will run my script which I already
> send to you? :)

??? My last reply to <ark AT mos DOT ru> bounced several times,
I only received an empty email which contained an UUCP
error message, but my queries what has happened bounced
as well. Have you changed your email? Please send the
script again as private mail.

 Matthias

-- 

Matthias Paul, Ubierstrasse 28, D-50321 Bruehl, Germany
<mailto:Matthias DOT Paul AT post DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>; <mailto:mpaul AT drdos DOT org>
http://www.uni-bonn.de/~uzs180/mpdokeng.html; http://mpaul.drdos.org