Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #8497
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: c++ compiler |
| Date | 2011-08-06 09:53 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <9a373aFuliU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <j1fjli$7ea$2@speranza.aioe.org> <buo1ux0fl9o.fsf@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com> <j1gcc0$lbg$1@news.albasani.net> <buosjpgdwlq.fsf@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com> <j1glta$sql$1@dont-email.me> |
On 08/ 5/11 11:58 PM, Victor Bazarov wrote: > On 8/5/2011 5:41 AM, Miles Bader wrote: >> [..] >> My general issue with the VS debugger was that very often there would >> be cases where you could _see_ interesting data, but not be able to >> manipulate it, or be able to manipulate it, but only rather awkwardly >> (o-n-e-s-t-e-p-a-t-a-t-i-m-e... argh!) For complex debugging tasks, >> this quickly became absolutely miserable >> >> With gdb, on the other hand, which is largely based on expression >> evaluation, while it was harder to visualize data, manipulation of it >> was vastly faster and easier (and more easily repeatable; often one >> wants to do the weird manipulation several times). > > In other words, with VC++'s debugger you're actually deBUGging, finding > out what's wrong, one step at a time, stopping to think, exiting to > change the code, compile, run again, etc.. With gdb you're actually > developing by tweaking the data, tweaking the program, altering > execution, etc.. Yes, no, maybe? It's a style debate, not the quality > of tools debate. If you need a debugger, your unit tests aren't good enough! Dives for cover :) -- Ian Collins
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
c++ compiler krishnakanth <kmanivan82@gmail.com> - 2011-08-03 13:34 -0700
Re: c++ compiler Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-08-03 17:11 -0400
Re: c++ compiler "Waldek M." <wm@localhost.localdomain> - 2011-08-04 21:40 +0200
Re: c++ compiler BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-04 15:06 -0700
Re: c++ compiler Qi <no@no.no> - 2011-08-05 10:14 +0800
Re: c++ compiler Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-08-05 15:02 +0900
Re: c++ compiler BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-05 02:11 -0700
Re: c++ compiler Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-08-05 18:41 +0900
Re: c++ compiler Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-08-05 07:58 -0400
Re: c++ compiler "Waldek M." <wm@localhost.localdomain> - 2011-08-05 21:30 +0200
Re: c++ compiler Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-06 09:53 +1200
Re: c++ compiler BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-05 15:10 -0700
Re: c++ compiler Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-06 10:20 +1200
Re: c++ compiler BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-05 18:30 -0700
Re: c++ compiler Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-06 15:25 +1200
Re: c++ compiler Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-08-06 10:42 +0200
Re: c++ compiler Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-06 21:42 +1200
Re: c++ compiler Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-08-06 15:38 +0200
Re: c++ compiler BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-06 11:58 -0700
Re: c++ compiler yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-08-09 13:28 +0000
Re: c++ compiler Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-07 08:33 +1200
Re: c++ compiler BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-05 12:34 -0700
Re: c++ compiler "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2011-08-05 15:13 -0600
csiph-web