Re: [cdt-dev] Disassembly View

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]

Re: [cdt-dev] Disassembly View

From: John Cortell <rat042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:08:48 -0500
Delivered-to: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
List-archive: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/cdt-dev>
List-help: <mailto:cdt-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
List-subscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev>, <mailto:cdt-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/options/cdt-dev>, <mailto:cdt-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>

At 02:04 PM 9/14/2010, you wrote:

I'm not sure "de-facto debugger framework" was the decision that was
made. I thought it was "default". Much different thing.

What ever term makes you happy :-) If you consider how muchdevelopment effort is going into DSF vs CDI, I think de-facto is notmuch of a stretch.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [cdt-dev] Disassembly View
  - From: Doug Schaefer

References:
- [cdt-dev] Disassembly View
  - From: Doug Schaefer
- Re: [cdt-dev] Disassembly View
  - From: John Cortell
- Re: [cdt-dev] Disassembly View
  - From: John Cortell
- Re: [cdt-dev] Disassembly View
  - From: Doug Schaefer

Prev by Date: Re: [cdt-dev] Disassembly View
Next by Date: Re: [cdt-dev] Disassembly View
Previous by thread: Re: [cdt-dev] Disassembly View
Next by thread: Re: [cdt-dev] Disassembly View
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Back to the top