Re: [cdt-dev] [DSF-GDB] Pending breakpoint support

[Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>]

It is a new feature. And I am disappointed it took so long for people
to notice it missing. But we are where we are.

I'd say forking is your best option. API changes will break the 7.0.1 build.

And again, this is the main use case driving our move to git. You
should be able to clone the main repo and create your branch locally
and continue to merge in fixes from the community as you go. You may
be able to use the cvs git mirrors to do that for now, in theory.

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Andy Jin <ajin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi, John,
>
> Do we have any other option besides forking the branch? And do you agree
> that this is a bug instead of a new feature - as indicated by Elena?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cortell <rat042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-to: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: CDT General developers list. <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, CDT General
> developers list. <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] [DSF-GDB] Pending breakpoint support
> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:31:03 -0500
>
> My two cents. No matter how important a feature it is, introducing it
> in a point release is unwise. Stability is of utmost importance in a
> point release. Breakpoints are a notoriously difficult/complex aspect
> of a debugger. I personally don't think we should make an exception.
>
> John
>
> At 10:40 AM 8/24/2010, Andy Jin wrote:
>>I verified the patch works. I think the remaining U.I. issues do not
>>prevent us from applying this patch.
>>
>>The question now is - can we have the similar fix to the cdt_7_0 branch?
>>
>>The problem is that (as mentioned in the bug) this is considered new
>>feature so IMHO our options are:
>>
>>1) Apply the patch to the cdt_7_0 branch and treat it as one exception.
>>This is tough but does anyone think this feature is important enough to
>>be treated as one exception? Do we have enough community votes to bring
>>this up?
>>
>>2) Ask whoever integrates from the cdt_7_0 branch to fork the branch and
>>fix it in his/her own copy.
>>
>>Is there any other option?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Andy
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Reply-to: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: CDT General developers list. <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] [DSF-GDB] Pending breakpoint support
>>Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:17:17 -0400
>>
>>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
>>more user-friendly.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Marc
>>
>>________________________________________
>>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
>> > DSF-GDB?
>> >
>> > I see it is still listed as one missing feature parity with CDI but it's
>> > listed under the "minor" section
>> > (http://wiki.eclipse.org/CDT/cdt-debug-feature-parity-effort).
>> >
>> > 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
>> > correct?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Andy
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cdt-dev mailing list
>> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>> >
>>_______________________________________________
>>cdt-dev mailing list
>>cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev_______________________________________________
>>cdt-dev mailing list
>>cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>cdt-dev mailing list
>>cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>