Yeah I can imagine trace history. Cool feature to
have. Easier on development. Still nothing bets well
placed debugging logic :) I try not to use a debugger
for not being to dependent on such assortment which
might not exist on other development tools.

Regards,
John


--- Gerhard Fiedler <lists@connectionbrazil.com>
wrote:

> John Chung wrote:
> 
> > I am quite satisfied with simple breakpoints. :) 
> 
> Well, I make do mostly even without them :)
> 
> But having a deep execution history is /really/
> nice. Something goes wrong,
> you stop it, and just browse through the history
> (that's linked to the
> source code) and see exactly how and why it got
> there. With full bus trace
> -- which means that you not only have the addresses
> where the code went,
> you have all the values the CPU read or wrote also,
> be that registers,
> memory locations, IO ports, HLL variable values,
> anything. This is not
> something even a comfortable PC debugger can give
> you. 
> 
> Of course, I know, emulators are for sissies... :)
> 
> (If you're interested, check out the ICE from
> http://www.lauterbach.com/ --
> they're pretty neat.)
> 
> Gerhard
> 
> -- 
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist