saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (09/15/90)
The usual stupidity: I remember there was some discussion of getting Mark
Williams db (no, I don't say it's the BEST machine language-level debugger,
only that it's a GOOD one) to work under TOS 1.4. I copied it down, and
them mislaid the information. Would someone please tell me how to do it?
And if someone can get it to work completely right under TOS 1.4, please
tell Mark Williams Company: all their effort is going into Coherent these
days, but they'd probably be willing to relay good news.
Steve J.jg@hpldola.HP.COM (Joe Gilray) (09/29/90)
Steve, Here is some information from my archives: NOTE that the last reference is from YOU! (pretty scary huh?) Yours, Joe Gilray ------------------- From hcj@lzaz.ATT.COM Wed Dec 27 09:29:34 1989 Relay-Version: version Notes 2.8.2 87/11/24; site hpldola.HP.COM From: hcj@lzaz.ATT.COM (HC Johnson) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1989 16:29:34 GMT Date-Received: Fri, 29 Dec 1989 01:23:30 GMT Subject: Re: TOS 1.4 Incompatibilities Message-ID: <898@lzaz.ATT.COM> Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA Path: hpldola!hpfcso!hplabs!hp-sdd!ucsdhub!ucsd!usc!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!rutgers!att!dptg!lzaz!hcj Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st References: <8912261631.AA04656@SAIC.COM> Lines: 36 Summary: tos 1.0 is different. In article <8912261631.AA04656@SAIC.COM>, steveg@SAIC.COM (Stephen Harold Goldstein) writes: > Add Mark Williams' CSD (source level debugger) to the list of > software incompatible with TOS 1.4. It comes up with something like > "TOS version dated 04061989 unknown" and terminates. > I think you mean DB not CSD. (At least my CSD does not do this). MWC db plays with tos data that was 'private' in tos 1.0. Afterward, tos 1.1 and on have a formal table of pointers to this info. Some one at MWC got carried away and coded it roughly as: if(tos1.0) { there is no table , rough it; } else if(tos 1.1) goto ok; else if(tos 1.2) goto ok; else goto h..l; Use a binary editer to look for the date string of the releases and patch the latest one to what tos1.4 uses [hint: change offset 0x1a0d from 22 to 6; change offset 0x1a0e from 87 to 89]. Then db will work. Sort of. It corrupts the system clock, and the console and memory are screwed until you reboot. Isn't nice when the OFFICIAL developer software is not compatible with 1.4, AND MWC claims that it is. Howard C. Johnson ATT Bell Labs att!lzaz!hcj hcj@lzaz.att.com ---------- In article <1990Jun13.205444.19303@chinet.chi.il.us>, saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes: > I had occasion to speak to the ST support guy at Mark Williams recently. One > thing I asked him about was making db (their binary-level debugger) work with > TOS 1.4. He recommended against trying, for example using the binary patches
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (10/03/90)
In article <16960003@hpldola.HP.COM> jg@hpldola.HP.COM (Joe Gilray) writes: > >Steve, > >Here is some information from my archives: > >NOTE that the last reference is from YOU! (pretty scary huh?) > >In article <1990Jun13.205444.19303@chinet.chi.il.us>, saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes: >> I had occasion to speak to the ST support guy at Mark Williams recently. One >> thing I asked him about was making db (their binary-level debugger) work with >> TOS 1.4. He recommended against trying, for example using the binary patches Ok, here's what changed. Mark Williams Company has a MAJOR hit in their COHERENT operating system for PC compatibles. It gives people a chance to try something VERY UNIX-like for a reasonable price. As a result, the resources they were going to devote to fixing db properly will not be available (that means that the guy who would have had to do the work has been drafted for an upgrade to COHERENT). 3WThey also inform me that Atari has been less than cooperative about helping them with the fix for new TOS versions. A debugger really DOES have to do things that most developers are better off not even suspecting are possible. When the wait was maybe a few months for a proper fix, that was tolerable (to me; maybe not to you). Now the word is probably never. I'm trying to be happy for a group who put out a product I like very much, and who still are happy to go out of their way to help when I have problems with it (as long as I telephone for help rather than writing). Steve J.