Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- blog:pushbx:2022:0506_embarrassing_ldebug_bug_in_ensuredebuggeeloaded [2022-05-06 14:36:39 +0000 May Fri] – created ecm
+++ blog:pushbx:2022:0506_embarrassing_ldebug_bug_in_ensuredebuggeeloaded [2022-05-06 14:45:26 +0000 May Fri] (current) – ecm
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 resetting it to zero to be precise.
 But the allocation, if successful, left **the segment of the allocated memory block**
-in''ax'', to be used to continue the initialisation and eventually call
+in ''ax'', to be used to continue the initialisation and eventually call
-interrupt 21h function 55h to create a child PSP.
+[[https://fd.lod.bz/rbil/interrup/dos_kernel/2155.html|interrupt 21h function 55h]] to create a child PSP.
 Passing a zero to the subsequent code made this function call
 destroy the (linear) first 256 bytes of memory, or the first 64 entries
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
   * Loading the debugger command line prompt without a debuggee file to load
   * Loading the debugger with a binary file to load (filename extension neither ''.COM'' nor ''.EXE'')
-  * The debuggee process quitting by itself
+  * The debuggee process quitting by itself and returning control to the debugger
-  * The debuggee process being terminated by the QA or Q commands
+  * The debuggee process being terminated by the QA
 The only case in which it did not crash,
 basically,
 was to load up an executable to run as a debuggee.
-And even then, only until trying to quit the debugger or terminate the debuggee.
+And even then, only until trying to terminate the debuggee.
+(However, not when terminating the debuggee by entering a Q command to the debugger.)
 Unfortunately, this slipped past my notice at first.
 Next, I suspected it might be