Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] [DSF-GDB] Pending breakpoint support

My two cents. No matter how important a feature it is, introducing it in a point release is unwise. Stability is of utmost importance in a point release. Breakpoints are a notoriously difficult/complex aspect of a debugger. I personally don't think we should make an exception.


At 10:40 AM 8/24/2010, Andy Jin wrote:
I verified the patch works. I think the remaining U.I. issues do not
prevent us from applying this patch.

The question now is - can we have the similar fix to the cdt_7_0 branch?

The problem is that (as mentioned in the bug) this is considered new
feature so IMHO our options are:

1) Apply the patch to the cdt_7_0 branch and treat it as one exception.
This is tough but does anyone think this feature is important enough to
be treated as one exception? Do we have enough community votes to bring
this up?

2) Ask whoever integrates from the cdt_7_0 branch to fork the branch and
fix it in his/her own copy.

Is there any other option?


-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: CDT General developers list. <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] [DSF-GDB] Pending breakpoint support
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:17:17 -0400

I have posted a partial fix to the bug

With that partial fix, when using GDB >=6.8, DSF-GDB will set pending breakpoints properly.

I say the fix is 'partial' because any breakpoint that does not install right away (pending) will never be marked as installed, even if it actually interrupts the execution. The solution to this was discussed in the bug, but requires more time, which I don't personally have. If anyone wants to take care of
that, I'll review it.

Note also that with this solution, there would no longer be a warning marker when a breakpoint does not install properly. That means that breakpoints of another eclipse project will no
longer show a warning, but simply won't show as installed.  We could choose to
still show a warning, maybe with explanatory text, but I wasn't sure what was
more user-friendly.

I think this solution, although partial, is an improvement on the current situation, and therefore worth
committing.  But I'll wait to see if anyone disagrees.


From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer [cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: August 20, 2010 2:25 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] [DSF-GDB] Pending breakpoint support

+1. This is definitely not minor, at least for the community.

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Andy Jin <ajin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just wondering what's the plan for pending breakpoint support in
> I see it is still listed as one missing feature parity with CDI but it's
> listed under the "minor" section
> (
> Without this feature we can't debug share library which is not loaded at
> program startup; and this (supposed) is a pretty common requirement.
> >From this point on this bug should not be considered minor, am I
> correct?
> Thanks,
> Andy
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev mailing list

cdt-dev mailing list

Back to the top