>Laine Stump writes:
>> Actually, I've been getting frustrated by the "n" command taking up to 30
>> sec. or so to complete sometimes (and other times completing immediately),

At 04:18 PM 12/6/99 -0600, Greg Oster wrote:
>Ummm.... 'n' is for 'next', right?  So it'll step 'over' any functions (and 
>those functions may take a long or short time to complete).  How fast/slow
>it responds will depend on what it has to do :)

"n" was just an example. It does the same thing for "s", or for printing
out the value of a simple integer variable or whatever.

>That's weird... I find it totally usable at 9600bps... (ya, some stuff is a 
>bit slow, but it's not at all like you describe..)

Happens about 50% of the time, and seems more common after the system has
been stopped at a breakpoint for a bit (> a few seconds)