[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
[cdt-debug-dev] RE: Applying patches
|
> >
> > Bonjour O:yvind,
> >
> > > Merci!
> > >
> >
> > It should go to Elena.
>
> Unless someone *applies* those patches, they won't be effectively
> shared. I'm glad to see
> evidence of patches being applied.
>
8-)
> Of course a big thanks to Elena for fixing the problems in the first
> place! :-)
>
Yea, the lady rocks.
> > > I'm just wondering: why is there so little activity on the CDT
> > > GDB implementation?
> > >
> >
> > Mea culpa, I have been quite busy.
>
> You're using the QNX address, but I thought you had moved on.
>
I have move on to other challenges, within qnx, with the side effect that I
am now spending to much time in Germany (Scheiße!!).
> > > There are a fair number of "trivial" fixes like the above that will
> > > make a *big* difference.
> > >
> > > E.g. this bug is serious enough that it should have seen activity if
> > > there was anyone at all working full time on CDT GDB:
> > >
> > > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=208984
> > >
> >
> > In this case, is this the right approach?
>
> Nope, and it says so in the report. It just points a finger at the problem
> by showing that disabling a piece of code makes the problem go away.
>
Ok.
> > The reason we use the process
> > factory class it because it allow us some flexibility, like being able
> to
> > send different signal to the process. It is not possible to do it with
> > Runtime.exec.
>
> Of course I'd like to see the process factory fixed. First step is to
> determine
> that is broken of course.
>
> > It is something that you see only in your environment or a general
> problem?
>
> I don't know how general the problem is.
>
> > I can see ProcessFactory taking sometimes since it needs to load a dll,
> the
> > code is implemented via JNI, but 10 seconds, seem like an awfully long
> > time...
>
> It's been so long so I've forgotten most about this. If nobody works
> on it on the
> other end, I kinda don't see the point in working on it. But if you are
> saying
> that someone *will* act on further input, then I'll try to dig into
> this next week.
>
Yes, we need more evidence here. We never seen this before, something must
have change, not sure it is your environment or it is really a general
problem
Anybody else in this list seeing this?
