[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [cdt-debug-dev] C/C++ Attach to Local App - launch
|
Mikhail,
Indeed. My assessment was a bit shortsighted. On Windows, you can
determine the executable file from the process; the OS gives you this
information. In an embedded environment, this is not necessarily going to
be true or useful (the path an RTOS would give you is a path to a file on
the target, whereas you want the path to the file on your development
system). So, OK, I think we can then say that you may or may not need to
specify a path to an image file when attaching to a process. As such, the
setting should be optional. Desktop users wouldn't use it; embedded users
probably would. Right now, there's no choice, unless leaving the field
blank is a handled scenario.
I'm a little lost on your second point. If you have the path to the
image, what else do you need? Are you saying a CDT project is indeed
needed?
John
At 02:17 PM 5/15/2006, Mikhail Khodjaiants wrote:
John,
I agree, it is ugly and it has to be changed.
But it is not necessary that
"the executable of
interest is, well, the executable you attach to". The former is the
module that contains the symbol information for the running process.
Another reason is that we can only get the address information (namely,
the address factory) from the executable. It's a question of design and I
am thinking to change it, but it's a part of the cdt core and may affect
others.
Anyway, your ideas are very welcome.
Mikhail
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: John
Cortell
- To: CDT Debug
developers list
- Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 1:49 PM
- Subject: [cdt-debug-dev] C/C++ Attach to Local App -
launch
- I'm taking a look at the C/C++ Attach to Local Application launch
type for the first time. It seems awkward that the launch config requires
a project and executable. When you're attaching to a process, the
executable of interest is, well, the executable you attach to (which you
pick from a list when you invoke the launch). Additionally, you may not
have an Eclipse project that builds that executable, yet the executable
has debug information and you have the sources on your machine.
- Does anyone else see this launch config type as a bad fit? I have
some ideas on a how we could possibly improve on it, but I want to first
see if anyone has an opinion on this, or if someone's already come up
with a better solution.
- John
- _______________________________________________
- cdt-debug-dev mailing list
- cdt-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
-
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-debug-dev
_______________________________________________
cdt-debug-dev mailing list
cdt-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-debug-dev