Re: [cdt-dev] Mac CDI Patches (Was MinGW gdb)

[Michael Jackson <mike.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'd like to comment on "why" those CDI patches were pushed, at least  
from my perspective since I seem to be the "vocal one".
  In an email with Marc-Andre Laperle he indicated that a Patched CDI  
still works better than DSF-GDB on OS X but there is more to it than  
simply that. I am all about moving away from CDI but I _still_ need  
something that works at least as good as CDI. So here were my own  
fears: The Galileo Service Release is coming up "real soon" and from  
my guessing (listening in on the CDT conference calls) was that DSF- 
GDB was most likely NOT going to be ready by the time Galileo Service  
release was released. Looking forward the only "Mac" person that is  
really working on getting DSF-GDB working is a student. Will Marc- 
Andre be able to get all the necessary code patches, QA and other  
stuff done in time for Helios? Plus twist someone's arm to get all  
those patches reviewed, committed and tested? I'm the "glass is half  
full" so I'm going to put a 50/50 bet something goes wrong OS X  
Debugging for Helios is still worthless. When is the next chance after  
that? November of 2010? I'm tired of waiting for it to be fixed.
  Patching CDI, however "dead" and deprecated CDI is, STILL gives a  
BETTER debugging experience than current Galileo or DSF-GDG can give.  
The patches seem to be non-intrusive and well compartmentalized which  
means the risk for other platforms is low. Now that those patches are  
in the CDT 6.x CVS branch I can have an "Official" CDT distribution  
with Debugging that actually works. It is all about what I can get NOW  
and that seems to be CDI.

Thanks for listening.
___________________________________________________________
Mike Jackson                      www.bluequartz.net
Principal Software Engineer       mike.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
BlueQuartz Software               Dayton, Ohio


On Feb 4, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Marc Khouzam wrote:

> Good point.  However, I've tried hard to get the Mac support for
> DSF-GDB to work as well as CDI.  In fact, we had reached that point
> until last night, when new patches were committed to CDI :-)
> I am all for continuing to make CDI work whenever the community
> contributes patches.  However, I am hoping that efforts put towards
> CDI are not taken away from DSF-GDB, as this is probably not the most
> efficient way to proceed.
> Mac is a good example again in this case, as we got good patches for
> DSF-GDB as soon as we were clear that this was the future for CDT,
> instead of focusing on CDI.