sdb anomoly: a bug or not?

[David F. Carlson]

Under SV/386r3.0 sdb(1) used to allow a c(ontinue) over a pause(2) after
an interrupt was received.  (In other words, an interrupt while in a pause 
could be skipped and execution resumed *after* the pause.)  Under SV/386r3.2,
sdb(1) appears to *restart* the pause(2).  Is there a workaround to
allow one to pass the pause?  Is this a bug or a feature? :-)  

-- 
David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc.
micropen!dave at ee.rochester.edu

"The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll