--- atari2600 <atari2600@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So if you're considering attaching breakpoints to
> source, as suggested below, I think we're on
> different tangents.
It wouldn't have to be one or the other. It could be
both.
The notion of "assemble time" vs. "debug time" is a
little blurred considering that it takes less than a
second to cross-assemble a 2600 binary on a PC.
Conceptually it's the same as controlling the debugger
from the sourcecode view in an integrated IDE like
Visual Studio. It's just that instead of a GUI
approach where debugging settings are hidden in other
windows and breakpoints are visually implied with
highlighting lines and such, you have to actually
annotate the sourcecode.
As long as the debugger can bring in a DASM LST file
and present the running code in that format with the
mnemonics, symbols, and comments intact, than I would
say configuring the breakpoints interactively in the
debugger would be fine without resorting to marking up
the sourcecode. But it would be nice to be able to
save debugging config off for later. With the
sourcecode aproach it's already embedded in the ASM
file which has its good and bad points (when sharing
code you'd want to remove or nullify all the debuging
lines).
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://stella.biglist.com
