Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] RE: Something for DSF GDB feature-parity with CDI GDB?

> ________________________________________
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Elmenthaler, Jens [jens.elmenthaler@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: March 31, 2010 3:07 AM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] RE: Something for DSF GDB feature-parity with CDI GDB?
> > Does this only happen when you are testing the new Pretty-printer
> > feature you are adding to DSF-GDB, or does it happen even without
> > that new code?
> It happens without the new code.
> > > My personal impression after working a couple of days with
> > > DSF GDB and gdb 7.x plus STL pretty printers is that I should
> > > not switch from CDI to DSF.
> >
> > This is the kind of issues that need to be reported to properly
> > improve DSF-GDB.  Please elaborate on any other problems you have
> > encountered.  Without this information, the issues that bother
> > you cannot be fixed.
> Sorry, I just wanted to say that because of this one issue, I will not be able to switch within our team, because we use gdb 7.1 and pretty printers and I would often run into that problem. This would mean for my situation that DSF GDB is not feature-par to CDI.

Sorry, it wasn't clear to me that it was only this issue that was causing you problems.  So let's fix it :-)
> In general the impression of DSF is very good. I like the details pain in the variables view which always shows decimal, hex, and binary at once. A very simple feature, but quite some value. And also the reverse debugging may become interesting.

Thanks for the feedback.

> > If it happens currently with HEAD, then yes it is, even if it
> > is by fluke.
> > Please open the bug and we can get it fixed.
> Done:

I've posted a fix to the bug.  It solves the issue for me after I reproduced your problem.  When you have time, can you give it a try?


Back to the top