On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Marc Khouzam
<marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sure. However, my plan for the next couple of weeks is to
> take another look at our launch story. I hate the fact we
> have a default. It should be related to the toolchain that
> the user is using for their project. Then when you define
> your toolchain, you can say what debugger and integration
> framework to use.
Are you talking about end-users defining the toolchain or
vendors? If we're talking about end-users, then
I think we all agreed it was not a good final solution
to make the users _have_ to choose a debugger integration
framework. That is why we have the default.
I knew that wording was bad :). I am making the assumption that end users don't define toolchains, only vendors, distro makers, and ourselves with our exemplary integrations.
But won't the same problem come up when defining a toolchain?
Which debugger integration will be the default when you are
defining a toolchain?
Part of the toolchain definition is the debugger you are using. If you have the same compiler with two debuggers, you have two toolchains.
I'm thinking we need to have default for the people that fit
in the category: "I just want to debug my application".
And for those people, I think the default should be
the integration that gives them the most debugging features.
The CDT is a diverse community, and for the most part, they already have a debugger in mind. Which is why I prefer we don't pick a default, but provide a platform and maybe a collection of tool chain integrations that allow the downstream distributors to provide what best suites their audience.
To be honest, I'm on DSF/GDB's side, and for our exemplary tools, most of them will be hooked up to DSF/GDB. But the Mac is a great example. If CDI/GDB works better there, and GDB 7.0 isn't available there, why would we make DSF/GDB the default there?
Doug.
