Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #8504

Re: c++ compiler

Show key headers only | View raw

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

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