[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [cdt-dev] [DSF-GDB] Pending breakpoint support
- From: Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:17:17 -0400
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Thread-index: ActAlSPgQYJ4hS1dQ4aRTkt6zRH/ggBEjRUi
- Thread-topic: [cdt-dev] [DSF-GDB] Pending breakpoint support
I have posted a partial fix to the bug https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=248595
With that partial fix, when using GDB >=6.8, DSF-GDB will set pending breakpoints properly.
I say the fix is 'partial' because any breakpoint that does not install right away (pending) will never
be marked as installed, even if it actually interrupts the execution. The solution to this was discussed in the
bug, but requires more time, which I don't personally have. If anyone wants to take care of
that, I'll review it.
Note also that with this solution, there would no longer be a warning marker when a breakpoint
does not install properly. That means that breakpoints of another eclipse project will no
longer show a warning, but simply won't show as installed. We could choose to
still show a warning, maybe with explanatory text, but I wasn't sure what was
I think this solution, although partial, is an improvement on the current situation, and therefore worth
committing. But I'll wait to see if anyone disagrees.
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer [cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: August 20, 2010 2:25 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] [DSF-GDB] Pending breakpoint support
+1. This is definitely not minor, at least for the community.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Andy Jin <ajin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just wondering what's the plan for pending breakpoint support in
> I see it is still listed as one missing feature parity with CDI but it's
> listed under the "minor" section
> Without this feature we can't debug share library which is not loaded at
> program startup; and this (supposed) is a pretty common requirement.
> >From this point on this bug should not be considered minor, am I
> cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev mailing list