RE: [cdt-dev] RE: Something for DSF GDB feature-parity with CDI GDB?

[Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So we do have a parity issue.

I'll add it back to the list.

---

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 1:45 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] RE: Something for DSF GDB feature-parity with CDI GDB?

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Let us know if you have any other issues.

> Well, the missing support for pending breakpoints certainly
> needs fixing ... ;-)

Yes, this one is a popular one (it even has 4 votes).
Although, as per
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/cdt-dev/msg17353.html (copied below)
it is not a feature-parity problem because CDI doesn't do it either :-)

That's actually a semantically incorrect statement. The CDI/MI integration implemented it's own pending breakpoint solution attempting to set breakpoints on every shared library load event. If DSF/GDB does that too, then I'd say you have parity.