Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #8441 > unrolled thread
| Started by | krishnakanth <kmanivan82@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-08-03 13:34 -0700 |
| Last post | 2011-08-05 15:13 -0600 |
| Articles | 3 on this page of 23 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
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
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-07 08:33 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <9a5mpiFfkpU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #8505 |
On 08/ 7/11 01:38 AM, Dombo wrote: > Op 06-Aug-11 11:42, Ian Collins schreef: >>> >>> 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. > > If you believe that than those tests give you a false sense of security. Hence my use of "should". One of these days I will write the perfect set of tests. Until then I still end up resorting to a debugger from time to time. I still consider this to be a failure in my process. > If you write the test first (as I do) you still have no guarantee it > covers every possible scenario (even when the code coverage is 100%). > Usually code fails on scenarios that weren't anticipated, rather than > the scenario's that were anticipated (and tested). As long as tests (and > specifications for that matter) are created by humans chances are that > they are flawed as well. Very true. Just make sure to add a test to show the new scenario fails before fixing it. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-05 12:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <j1hgtb$b85$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #8489 |
On 8/5/2011 2:41 AM, Miles Bader wrote: > BGB<cr88192@hotmail.com> writes: >>> Hmm, I've found VC's debugger pretty annoying actually. >>> >>> I suspect (as with most such things) that it depends as much on what >>> you're used to, as it does on actual functionality... >> >> IME, once one gets use to the VS debugger, it is often a lot faster to >> actually figure out what has gone on and why than with GDB. > > Hard to say; I don't use it so often, and even the people here who use > it a lot seem to be rather clueless about anything except the simplest > functionality... > yes, but often one gets a crash, and sees the code, variables, back-trace, ... all at the same time. in GDB, one only sees the offending/current line, need to type commands to see the backtrace or values of local variables, ... so, most often, one gets a crash/..., knows what the problem is in maybe a few seconds or so, goes and fixes up the code, and runs it again. >> likewise goes for WinDbg (another graphical debugger from MS, with some >> interesting features, but generally more of a hassle to launch). >> >> the advantage of these graphical debuggers is that one can more often >> see what is going on much more quickly, as there is often a lot more >> information on screen at the same time, rather then requiring commands >> to fetch these details. likewise, many commands are bound to keys, again >> saving on typing. > > Well it's similar to any CLI vs. GUI debate I suppose. The GUI is > often easier for raw beginners, for intrinsically graphical or spatial > tasks, but slower and more awkward for complex tasks, or tasks that > are "language like". > realize though that there are also immediate evaluation and command-entry tabs available, at least in the VS debugger I have (I have the 'Professional' version given out as part of the whole "MSDN Academic Alliance" thing, being a college student and all...). I actually used GDB for the most part first, and more recently switched over to GUI debuggers (mostly due to having switched over to using MSVC as the backend compiler on Windows). I still use GDB when debugging on Linux though. WinDbg also allows command-based control (it has a small mIRC-like window for typing commands and reading status messages). I used WinDbg first, but mostly ended up using VS debugger as it summons itself when an app crashes, vs WinDbg which has to be launched and directed to launch an app more manually (and, thus, less conviniently). generally, I build from the command-line though, as these IDEs offer more drawbacks than advantages when it comes to non-trivial projects (so command-line + multiple Windows-Explorer windows, and a pile of open text editors, are used instead...). > 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). > fair enough, VS debugger is better for "ok, why did it crash?", but maybe not so good for exploratory tasks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-05 15:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <9a34ofFfjlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #8441 |
K said: > Please give me the link to download c++ compiler. > Krishnakanth: To download the latest MinGW 4.5.2 C compiler, visit www.whosaway.com, enter the password: 'HB', then scroll to the bottom of the download table, and download the .rar file for MinGw 4.5.2 Good Luck ! -Mel
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web