RE: [cdt-dev] MinGW gdb

[Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
> Sent: February-04-10 12:03 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] MinGW gdb
> 
> 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.

I understand better now :-)

> 	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.

Right, but if we take DSF-GDB and CDI-GDB as examples, having
GDB as the debugger of my toolchain, does not guide me as to which
integration to use.  We'll still need to have a default selection.

> 	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.

That sounds good.  
But when I think the plain user that just wants to debug their app,
I still get the feeling we should make things as transparent as possible.

 
> 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?

Good point.  However, I've tried hard to get the Mac support for
DSF-GDB to work as well as CDI.  In fact, we had reached that point
until last night, when new patches were committed to CDI :-)
I am all for continuing to make CDI work whenever the community
contributes patches.  However, I am hoping that efforts put towards
CDI are not taken away from DSF-GDB, as this is probably not the most
efficient way to proceed.
Mac is a good example again in this case, as we got good patches for 
DSF-GDB as soon as we were clear that this was the future for CDT, 
instead of focusing on CDI.

I'm hoping that we can get some traction through such efforts and that
more and more DSF-GDB patches will come in to fix whatever issues there
are that affect a specific platform/community.

Thanks

Marc