[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] Mac CDI Patches (Was MinGW gdb)
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Jackson
> Sent: February-04-10 1:42 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Mac CDI Patches (Was MinGW gdb)
>
> 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.
I hear your pain and I can't argue against your approach.
You need to debug on Mac, and you will use whatever works.
Let's get DSF-GDB to work then, since it is so close to what
CDI offers. You had written:
> A fully patched CDI works better than DSF on Mac OS, at least,
> from what I tested so this is what I use. Here's what works in
> a fully patched CDI versus DSF-GDB :
> - Properly display threads without refreshing (Bug 301720)
I'll look at this one since Marc-Andre kindly posted a patch.
> - Debug in a path containing a space (bug 263689). To be fair,
> it probably doesn't work with DSF-GDB on any platform. It would
> also be hard to do a Mac OS-specific patch in DSF-GDB.
We could do a Mac-specific patch by using the service instead
of sending the MI command directly. I'll put that comment in the
bug to help it along.
For my info, are spaces used a lot in paths on Mac?
I've never had to care about this problem on Linux.
> - Inserting a breakpoint while GDB is running. This is also not
> supported in DSF-GDB on any platform, see bug 242943.
I've always wanted to have this fixed.
I can look at that one too since I see a patch from Marc-Andre.
As a note though, there are more and more people knowledgeable
about DSF in the CDT community these days, and maybe someone
else wants to give one of these bugs a look? I hate to think
I'm the reason these things are not being fixed, but I also have
a lot (_lot_) of other work to do.
Thanks
Marc
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>