>>> If this is a "can't happen" kind of condition, [...] you should
>>> probably call panic() instead [...]
>> 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.

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B