der Mouse wrote:
> >> This brings up a question: if panic() drops into ddb, is there any
> >> way (short of really ugly hacks like bashing return addresses on the
> >> stack) to "ignore" the panic, to cause panic() to simply return?
> > I don't think panic() is designed to work like this.
> 
> I didn't think so either.
> 
> But often enough when debugging userland code, I've hit "can't-happen"
> conditions, and on investigation realized why they happened and, backed
> by that realization, been able to patch the problem up and continue on.
> I was wondering if there was any support for doing the same in ddb.
> 
> "No" is a perfectly good answer, and probably not an unreasonable one.

If you really think that this might be useful, implementing
a "continue" command in ddb might be the way to go. ddb would
have to clean up after itself and return to the call from
panic(). But how often is this going to be used? How much
effort would be involved to implement this? Who has got the
spare time to implement it? Questions over questions :-)

Sorry, I've been working to much today, will shut up and go
home now ...

  Guenther