Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] Mac CDI Patches (Was MinGW gdb)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Jackson
> Sent: February-04-10 1:42 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Mac CDI Patches (Was MinGW gdb)
> I'd like to comment on "why" those CDI patches were pushed, 
> at least from my perspective since I seem to be the "vocal one".
>    In an email with Marc-Andre Laperle he indicated that a 
> Patched CDI still works better than DSF-GDB on OS X but there 
> is more to it than simply that. I am all about moving away 
> from CDI but I _still_ need something that works at least as 
> good as CDI. So here were my own
> fears: The Galileo Service Release is coming up "real soon" 
> and from my guessing (listening in on the CDT conference 
> calls) was that DSF- GDB was most likely NOT going to be 
> ready by the time Galileo Service release was released. 
> Looking forward the only "Mac" person that is really working 
> on getting DSF-GDB working is a student. Will Marc- Andre be 
> able to get all the necessary code patches, QA and other 
> stuff done in time for Helios? Plus twist someone's arm to 
> get all those patches reviewed, committed and tested? I'm the 
> "glass is half full" so I'm going to put a 50/50 bet 
> something goes wrong OS X Debugging for Helios is still 
> worthless. When is the next chance after that? November of 
> 2010? I'm tired of waiting for it to be fixed.
>    Patching CDI, however "dead" and deprecated CDI is, STILL 
> gives a BETTER debugging experience than current Galileo or 
> DSF-GDG can give.  
> The patches seem to be non-intrusive and well 
> compartmentalized which means the risk for other platforms is 
> low. Now that those patches are in the CDT 6.x CVS branch I 
> can have an "Official" CDT distribution with Debugging that 
> actually works. It is all about what I can get NOW and that 
> seems to be CDI.

I hear your pain and I can't argue against your approach.
You need to debug on Mac, and you will use whatever works.

Let's get DSF-GDB to work then, since it is so close to what
CDI offers.  You had written:

> A fully patched CDI works better than DSF on Mac OS, at least, 
> from what I tested so this is what I use. Here's what works in 
> a fully patched CDI versus DSF-GDB :
> - Properly display threads without refreshing (Bug 301720)

I'll look at this one since Marc-Andre kindly posted a patch.

> - Debug in a path containing a space (bug 263689). To be fair, 
> it probably doesn't work with DSF-GDB on any platform. It would 
> also be hard to do a Mac OS-specific patch in DSF-GDB.

We could do a Mac-specific patch by using the service instead
of sending the MI command directly.  I'll put that comment in the
bug to help it along.

For my info, are spaces used a lot in paths on Mac?
I've never had to care about this problem on Linux.

> - Inserting a breakpoint while GDB is running. This is also not 
> supported in DSF-GDB on any platform, see bug 242943.

I've always wanted to have this fixed.
I can look at that one too since I see a patch from Marc-Andre.

As a note though, there are more and more people knowledgeable
about DSF in the CDT community these days, and maybe someone
else wants to give one of these bugs a look?  I hate to think
I'm the reason these things are not being fixed, but I also have
a lot (_lot_) of other work to do.



> Thanks for listening.
> ___________________________________________________________
> Mike Jackson            
> Principal Software Engineer       mike.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> BlueQuartz Software               Dayton, Ohio
> On Feb 4, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Marc Khouzam wrote:
> > 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.
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Back to the top