Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] [DSF-GDB] Pending breakpoint support

John, just wondering are you customers/organization using gdb based
dsf integration?

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:59 PM, John Cortell <rat042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I don't, on both accounts.
>
> On the latter, the "bug" vs "feature" thing can be a very gray area. I
> wouldn't engage into a debate in this particular instance. I will just say
> that given the size of the patch, I definitely lean towards treating this as
> a feature, even if someone submits a convincing argument for it being a bug.
>
> John
>
> At 11:46 AM 8/24/2010, Andy Jin 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
>


Back to the top