Skip to main content

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

Hi James,

Last month the GDB core awareness patches where committed (, if you need something special for multi-core debug in DSF-GDB please let us know, we are planning to add multi-core debug to DSF-GDB this year.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Blackburn
> Sent: 4-Feb-10 13:48
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] MinGW gdb
> > It's too optimistic to believe in the bright future when we 
> will have 
> > one universal launch configuration for GDB. Many clients 
> not only add 
> > new features but also hide the features they don't support.
> I think this point is key, and likely what Doug was trying to get at:
> integrators customise the platform, often provide their own 
> launches for their build products, and set defaults for their users.
> In my mind there really are two separate issues:
>   - What debug engine CDT should use for debugging GDB by default
>   - What APIs are exposed for ISVs to to plug debugging into 
> their product.
> As a case in point, we use a GDB based debugger + a custom 
> launch for CDI which allows multi-core debugging and GUI for 
> target specific options. It's my intention to migrate to DSF, 
> but due to lack of time (+ higher priorities) I haven't yet 
> investigated how I can do the same things with DSF as I can 
> with CDI.  It'll happen, just not today.
> As it stands both sets of API are available and will continue 
> to be so for some time.
> I guess this debate really centers on the first point: what 
> the default should be for fresh downloads using 
> platform GDB.
> In CDT currently, project configurations don't dictate / 
> affect launch configurations, as users might see in Visual 
> Studio. In my opinion the Eclipse way is more flexible for 
> integrators and perhaps as a result more confusing for users. 
>  I'm not sure what the right answer is here, perhaps 
> integrators really should be able to specify a default launch 
> type / debug engines for their build configurations, and the 
> default toolchains for the various platforms could specify 
> the best default for the platform?
> Cheers,
> James
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Back to the top