[
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?
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Elmenthaler, Jens
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:39 AM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] RE: Something for DSF GDB
> feature-parity with CDI GDB?
>
> > So I guess you're back on the DSF-GDB train :-)
> Yes I'm back.
>
> > Let us know if you have any other issues.
> Well, the missing support for pending breakpoints certainly
> needs fixing ... ;-)
Yes, this one is a popular one (it even has 4 votes).
Although, as per
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/cdt-dev/msg17353.html (copied below)
it is not a feature-parity problem because CDI doesn't do it either :-)
But it would be nice to have it fixed.
The first 10 comments on the bug propose a solution, but
no one has had time to get to it. Maybe someone can get
inspired by the proposal?
Marc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Cortell [rat042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: February 18, 2010 7:17 PM
To: CDT General developers list.; 'CDT General developers list.'
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] FW: Fixing some Debug feature-parity bugs
Marc,
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=248595
is a CDI vs DSF parity bug I signed up for. I'm not sure it really is a parity issue, since the CDI solution
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=294874
never got committed. While this is an important capability, I don't think we should be including it in the "parity" effort since it really does not constitute a hurdle in adopting DSF-GDB as the default debugger over CDI-GDB.
John
