Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #8504
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: c++ compiler |
| Date | 2011-08-06 21:42 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <9a4gl1FfkpU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <j1hq1v$167$1@news.albasani.net> <9a38ktFuliU2@mid.individual.net> <j1i5nt$cbd$1@news.albasani.net> <9a3qgeFk3bU1@mid.individual.net> <4e3cfe4b$0$30706$5fc3050@news.tiscali.nl> |
On 08/ 6/11 08:42 PM, Dombo wrote: > Op 06-Aug-11 5:25, Ian Collins schreef: >> On 08/ 6/11 01:30 PM, BGB wrote: >>> On 8/5/2011 3:20 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> 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! > > Unit tests never are. Even when the code coverage is 100% there is still > no guarantee that you have covered all possible execution flows. There should be if you wrote the tests first. >>>>>> Dives for cover :) >>>>> >>>>> unit tests wont help finding out where and why one is experiencing a >>>>> segfault or similar... > > Unless you can reproduce the problem with your unit test (extend it if > needed). > >>>> If a change causes a crash, back it out and try again... >>> >>> or, just invoke the debugger and see why it has crashed... >> >> If that's quicker than redoing the change, you are changing too much >> between test runs. > > Invoking a debugger to see the point where a process has crashed, see > the call stack and see the variables takes less than a second. How many > changes can you make in that time, recompile and running your unit tests? That all depends whether the platform (and language) you are using has a decent debugger. -- 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