Tim Rowledge wrote:

> "Andreas Raab" <Andreas.Raab at gmx.de> is claimed by the authorities to have written:
>  
> 
>>None of the stuff I did (which has been a while ago) worked correctly in
>>the debugger.
>>
> I'd still like to see it though; maybe I can spot a way to make it play
> nice! A good thrashing with a stick (no bigger around than my thumb, of
> course) may be sufficient.

> 
> 
>>Notice that just intercepting #activeProcess won't help - it may be sent
>>during a #quickStep (e.g., a non-simulated send during simulated
>>execution) which is _not_ run in the simulated process.
>>
> Yup, I didn't think it would be a particuarly good approach, though
> mostly I suspected it woud be a bit of a time cost more than anything.
> Something that runs up the stack (like a simplified exception handling
> run that doesn't bother to stop at handlers along the way up) still
> seems most usable to me, but I'm very willing to be corrected on this.
> 

It might be possible to further modify the quickStep mechanism so that it
runs in the process being debugged. I'll have a look at it someday this week.
Andreas, where is the stuff you did? I might be able to integrate it as well.

Cheers,
Hans-Martin