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

Hi, John,

Do we have any other option besides forking the branch? And do you agree
that this is a bug instead of a new feature - as indicated by Elena?

-----Original Message-----
From: John Cortell <rat042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: CDT General developers list. <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, CDT General
developers list. <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] [DSF-GDB] Pending breakpoint support
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:31:03 -0500

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
> > DSF-GDB?
> >
> > 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

cdt-dev mailing list

Back to the top