Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Ian Collins Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: c++ compiler Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 10:20:12 +1200 Lines: 35 Message-ID: <9a38ktFuliU2@mid.individual.net> References: <59223312-c2e1-416f-b647-5d0df25bc2b8@f17g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <12ioeb0ubofum$.dlg@localhost.localdomain> <9a373aFuliU1@mid.individual.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net e8JzbmMEXmvhIl75WQ1k6wJfq29jBn0avQEGjl/6lVfM80a0k+ Cancel-Lock: sha1:gWvVXYfjuL9pYYy53mEWW2dX9Ow= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20101021 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4 In-Reply-To: Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c++:8499 On 08/ 6/11 10:10 AM, BGB wrote: > On 8/5/2011 2:53 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> 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 :) >> > > unit tests wont help finding out where and why one is experiencing a > segfault or similar... If a change causes a crash, back it out and try again... -- Ian Collins