Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] MinGW gdb

It does give the impression you're selective about which communities are worth encouraging (EDC) and which to do an end run around (GDB). 
My understanding from CDT meeting discussions (which don't have minutes most of the time) was that we would leave CDI for Galileo and put DSF-GDB for Helios, in the last meeting (which has documented minutes), the plan for CDT is not clear anymore ("Which one should be the default? EDC is good for Windows"). Not having a clear direction doesn't help companies to contribute to open source projects and doesn't help to focus the existing community, it takes time to be up to speed with a new framework, people are hesitant to do it unless they know the knowledge will help them in the future and that a stable/rich set of features is available. 
In the debug area, many companies are making big contributions to GDB, e.g. multi-architecture, multi-OS support  (IBM, Ericsson), Python scripting (RedHat, etc), dynamic and static Tracepoint (CodeSourcery, Ericsson, Polytechnique), improved C/C++ debug (RedHat/Archer), Multi-Process/exec (CodeSourcery, Freescale, etc.), non-stop (CodeSourcery, Ericsson) reversible debug (VMware, Virtutech, etc.), I could go on, especially for upcoming features like core awareness. A lot more companies are making smaller contribution and using GDB extensively, DSF/GDB has a lot of features, it's been around for many years, GDB stubs works on all targets that I know of, from RTOS, to native Linux, to windows, to emulator/simulators (e.g simics), to JTAG, we can even use the same DSF/GDB binary on host to debug different targets. GDB is the most ubiquitous debugger I know. For the DSF-GDB, I think WindRiver  (e.g. Pawel, Randy, etc.) did a great job with the initial DSF-GDB implementation and we were happy to contribute to it in order to help build the future debug solution for CDT.
I am afraid that if CDT changes direction again, companies who are using GDB and Eclipse will continue to wait for contributions until CDT makes up it's mind and has a stable/rich set of features for debug, going EDC as default is narrowing and doesn't help collaboration with Linux Foundation on tools (something equivalent to LSB but for tools). As you know we are planning a packaging of CDT + Linux Tools + GNU Tools for Linux targets, hopefully it will give more visibility to the CDT in the Linux community and attract more people (Linux is a fast growing community). We can do it on Eclipse Lab under some form of CDT distribution including GNU binaries. To answer your question below yes DSF/GDB is working with MinGW gdb 7.0.1 on windows and you can use it in Wascana, hopefully we can work together on the CDT distribution.
I guess putting something together in order to make the DSF-GDB default choice more obvious would be good, the above + list of features could be a start?

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
Sent: 3-Feb-10 10:42
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] MinGW gdb

Well, I certainly wasn't making a personal attack on the people working on gdb for mingw, nor was I challenging their character. The issues I was running into was much more technical than that and involved stack unwinding when mixing msvc and gcc built DLLs. Or maybe it was stopping on shared library events giving me garbage stacks or stopping at the wrong time. I'm not a debugger expert, but It was more complicated than tty's at any rate.

I'm just not confident that the Windows platform is getting a lot of love from the gcc and gdb communities, and if that's the case, I'm OK with that.. It is a bit of a niche market. Or maybe that's changing lately and I'll certainly take a look at the 7.0.1 gdb that's now up on the mingw site. If it works with GDB/DSF, then I'll be happy. If not, I do know that EDC seems to work there and there is effort going into making it work well there.


On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 01:22:07AM -0500, Doug Schaefer wrote:
> Here's an example of why I'd like to go EDC for Wascana. MinGW gdb is a bit
> of a mess.

This really pushes my buttons.

Instead of constantly complaining about MinGW GDB, you could submit
bug reports or try to understand the actual problem.  For someone
who's so gung-ho about community involvement, you're selective about
which communities are worth being involved in (or even worth
encouraging) and which to do an end run around.

For instance, this might be the mostly intractable problem of
_isatty().  There's no API equivalent to pseudo-TTY's on Windows;
if you run a console program from GDB, it has to either pop up a new
console or else run the program with its standard handles connected
to a pipe.  This results in buffered output and people complain about
missing printfs.  I think current GDB does a little better.
An experienced Windows developer might be able to make it do
better still.

It could be any number of other problems.  This random poster is
complaining about GDB 5.3.  That is a seven year old release.  For
some perspective on how long ago that is: this is like walking up to
you and complaining about a bug in CDT 1.0.

Daniel Jacobowitz
cdt-dev mailing list

Back to the top