>>65Sure. Simply saying, it'd be a self-defeating effort if the debugging tool was itself faulty. And now I've come at odds with faulty architectures the tool would run on.
What it could do instead is ``hijack'' the architecture from the inside, having only a very limited set of commands which the user, through an input method, would config by means of analog commands in the used architecture. Then the debugging tool would effectively run assembly with all the expressivity its DSL allows.