Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!feeder.news-service.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Debugger Recommendation Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:13:00 +0900 Organization: NEC Electronics Lines: 48 Message-ID: References: <4e71c098$0$24024$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> <4e71d8f3$0$24015$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: individual.net pwc3xs+7bM7FMsg9NbsWuQmJlJo3Yp9llFO3vsymKat7uZg4aZ Cancel-Lock: sha1:aYQrXZA4KTB/hxstSuic81B4YtA= sha1:QaawATrSRGpPObLke2EgEQC+pNg= System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Blat: Foop Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c++:10163 Rui Maciel writes: > Miles Bader wrote: >> Rui Maciel writes: >>> It can be said that one of the reasons why "many C++ users" tend not >>> to use a debugger in linux is that gdb doesn't work well with C++, >>> and once we ignore gdb there isn't much left to consider. >> >> Hmm, gdb works pretty well with C++ AFAICT (yeah, I've used VS too). >> Granted, much better in recent years than it used to. > > It really depends on what you interpret as "pretty well". Not being able to > get a clear and meaningful print out of a STL container and it's methods > tends to pose some problems. It's obviously somewhat subjective. I've had my annoyances with gdb's C++ support (mostly one thing: breakpoints in templates), but I've debugged a lot of C++ in gdb, and found it be quite usable. You're right that it doesn't have much in the way of high-level STL support or whatever, of course. Whether that can be described as "doesn't work very well," though, I dunno. >>> Nonetheless, if there was a decent debugger that adequately >>> supported C++ then "many C++ users" would use it, including for >>> stuff where valgrind and other tools are employed. >> >> No, I think that's not true. Valgrind is very different than a >> debugger, and is useful for different things. > > If you read what I've written you will notice that I didn't claimed that a > debugger does what valgrind does. I didn't claim you said that. But my assumption was that users actually want to find problems, and thus try to use the best tool for the job -- which is sometimes valgrind (or the like), even in the presence of a good debugger. So now I'm not really sure _what_ you're saying... If you're saying that users are creatures of habit, and would rather stick to a friendly GUI tool even if it's not really appropriate, then yeah, maybe you're right. -Miles -- "... The revolution will be no re-run brothers; The revolution will be live."