Hi,
this is a bit drastic and probably premature but
instead of having DSF vs CDI shown to the user
we could have:
GDB 6.6 and higher vs older GDBs
where 6.6+ would go to DSF while older GDBs would
go to CDI.
Of course, the gdb version would not be enforced, so we
could always choose CDI or DSF;
it would provide some recommendation (maybe a bit too
strong?) to the user.
Or, to be safer, we could use GDB 6.8 and higher. I
don't know how well CDI handles
6.8 right now, so maybe it is better to go for DSF in that
case?
Heck, if we want to be really safe, if GDB 7.0 is out
before Galieo, which is the current plan,
we could just have 7.0+ for
DSF; I'm pretty sure CDI won't handle 7.0 as well as DSF.
I'm probably gonna regret this when the bugs start coming
in :-)
Marc
Using capabilities is a neat idea, though it suffers from the same
problem as the UI in the launch dialog. Users would still have to know
what "DSF" means :-(
-Pawel
Sergey Prigogin wrote:
Before a comprehensive solution is developed, the problem can be
partially alleviated by creating capabilities for CDT GNU Toolchain Debug
Support and GDB DSF Debugger Integration. Even when both are installed,
users should still be able to disable one or the
other.
-sergey
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Pawel Piech
<pawel.piech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi All,
I've run into a
new problem trying to create
common launch configurations for CDT. In short, I have the common
launch configurations ready to be committed, but they present something of
a new workflow challenge for users. If a user installs both of the
following optional features:
1) CDT GNU Toolchain Debug Support
2)
GDB DSF Debugger Integration
he will be presented with the a launch
configuration that requires him to choose a launcher (see attached screen
caps).
This problem could be avoided by creating a CDT
product which could for the Eclipse C/C++ bundle, (instead of the standard
Eclipse platform product used now). I'm not really sure what would
be other benefits or disadvantages of doing this, but it seems like a big
change to satisfy this one problem.
I'm looking for guidance
on how big an issue this is for everyone and whether to commit the common
launch configurations patch. I also wonder what people think of
defining a CDT
product?
-Pawel
_______________________________________________
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