[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [cdt-dev] MinGW gdb, Multi-Core Debug
|
Hi James,
Last month the GDB core awareness patches where committed (http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-01/subjects.html), if you need something special for multi-core debug in DSF-GDB please let us know, we are planning to add multi-core debug to DSF-GDB this year.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Blackburn
> Sent: 4-Feb-10 13:48
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] MinGW gdb
>
> > It's too optimistic to believe in the bright future when we
> will have
> > one universal launch configuration for GDB. Many clients
> not only add
> > new features but also hide the features they don't support.
>
> I think this point is key, and likely what Doug was trying to get at:
> integrators customise the platform, often provide their own
> launches for their build products, and set defaults for their users.
>
> In my mind there really are two separate issues:
> - What debug engine CDT should use for debugging GDB by default
> - What APIs are exposed for ISVs to to plug debugging into
> their product.
>
> As a case in point, we use a GDB based debugger + a custom
> launch for CDI which allows multi-core debugging and GUI for
> target specific options. It's my intention to migrate to DSF,
> but due to lack of time (+ higher priorities) I haven't yet
> investigated how I can do the same things with DSF as I can
> with CDI. It'll happen, just not today.
>
> As it stands both sets of API are available and will continue
> to be so for some time.
>
> I guess this debate really centers on the first point: what
> the default should be for fresh eclipse.org downloads using
> platform GDB.
> In CDT currently, project configurations don't dictate /
> affect launch configurations, as users might see in Visual
> Studio. In my opinion the Eclipse way is more flexible for
> integrators and perhaps as a result more confusing for users.
> I'm not sure what the right answer is here, perhaps
> integrators really should be able to specify a default launch
> type / debug engines for their build configurations, and the
> default toolchains for the various platforms could specify
> the best default for the platform?
>
> Cheers,
> James
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
