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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #9438 > unrolled thread

Debugger Recommendation

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  Debugger Recommendation Joseph Hesse <joeh@gmail.com> - 2011-08-29 09:40 -0500
    Re: Debugger Recommendation Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-08-29 11:01 -0400
    Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-29 19:19 +0200
      Re: Debugger Recommendation "Waldek M." <wm@localhost.localdomain> - 2011-08-29 21:37 +0200
        Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-30 07:51 +1200
          Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-29 22:52 +0200
            Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-30 08:56 +1200
              Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-29 23:00 +0200
                Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-30 09:21 +1200
                Re: Debugger Recommendation Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-08-30 04:58 +0100
          Re: Debugger Recommendation "Waldek M." <wm@localhost.localdomain> - 2011-08-31 21:45 +0200
            [OT] Re: Debugger Recommendation Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-09-10 02:17 -0500
              Re: [OT] Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 10:00 +0200
                Re: [OT] Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-10 21:14 +1200
                  Re: [OT] Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-10 11:26 +0200
                    Re: [OT] Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-10 21:33 +1200
                Re: [OT] Re: Debugger Recommendation Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-09-10 06:32 -0500
              Re: Debugger Recommendation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-10 06:59 -0700
                Re: Debugger Recommendation Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-09-10 09:39 -0500
        Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-29 22:51 +0200
          Re: Debugger Recommendation "Waldek M." <wm@localhost.localdomain> - 2011-08-31 21:11 +0200
            Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-31 22:17 +0200
              Re: Debugger Recommendation "Waldek M." <wm@localhost.localdomain> - 2011-09-01 07:26 +0200
          Re: Debugger Recommendation dan <dan.campbell+nospam@gmail.com> - 2011-09-09 21:30 -0500
      Re: Debugger Recommendation DeMarcus <use_my_alias_here@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-22 08:57 +0200
        Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-22 09:16 +0200
          Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-22 19:46 +1200
          Re: Debugger Recommendation DeMarcus <use_my_alias_here@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-22 11:15 +0200
    Re: Debugger Recommendation Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-29 22:02 -0700
      Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-30 11:09 +0200
        Re: Debugger Recommendation Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-30 05:26 -0700
          Re: Debugger Recommendation Oliver Jackson <chexmofo@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-30 08:25 -0700
            Re: Debugger Recommendation Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-30 10:34 -0700
    Re: Debugger Recommendation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-11 20:37 +0000
      Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-12 00:40 +0200
        Re: Debugger Recommendation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-12 21:58 +0000
          Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-13 00:52 +0200
            Re: Debugger Recommendation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-09-13 06:40 +0000
              Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-15 10:26 +1200
                Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-15 00:57 +0200
                  Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-15 11:13 +1200
                  Re: Debugger Recommendation Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2011-09-14 18:16 -0500
                    Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-15 11:36 +1200
                  Re: Debugger Recommendation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-09-15 06:35 +0000
                    Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-15 09:29 +0200
                      Re: Debugger Recommendation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-09-15 07:46 +0000
                        Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-15 09:58 +0200
                          Re: Debugger Recommendation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-09-15 09:57 +0000
                            Re: Debugger Recommendation Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-15 19:30 +0900
                              Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-15 14:28 +0200
            Re: Debugger Recommendation yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-09-13 13:29 +0000
              Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-14 08:42 +1200
              Re: Debugger Recommendation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-15 10:37 +0100
                Re: Debugger Recommendation Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-15 19:36 +0900
                Re: Debugger Recommendation yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-09-19 09:42 +0000
                  Re: Debugger Recommendation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-19 10:59 +0000
            Re: Debugger Recommendation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-13 20:09 +0000
          Re: Debugger Recommendation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-15 10:11 +0100
            Re: Debugger Recommendation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-16 21:29 +0000
      Re: Debugger Recommendation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-15 10:08 +0100
        Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-15 21:23 +1200
          Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-15 11:38 +0200
            Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-15 21:41 +1200
          Re: Debugger Recommendation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-15 10:43 +0100
        Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-15 11:34 +0200
          Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-15 21:54 +1200
          Re: Debugger Recommendation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-15 11:44 +0100
            Re: Debugger Recommendation jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-15 18:56 +0200
              Re: Debugger Recommendation yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-09-19 09:53 +0000
                Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 22:34 +1200
                  Re: Debugger Recommendation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-19 11:13 +0000
                    Re: Debugger Recommendation yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-09-22 11:41 +0000
                      Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-23 07:45 +1200
          Re: Debugger Recommendation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-16 21:24 +0000
        Re: Debugger Recommendation Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-15 18:55 +0900
          Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-15 22:03 +1200
            Re: Debugger Recommendation Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-15 19:29 +0900
              Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-15 23:13 +1200
                Re: Debugger Recommendation Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-15 20:15 +0900
                  Re: Debugger Recommendation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-15 23:22 +1200
          Re: Debugger Recommendation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-15 11:52 +0100
            Re: Debugger Recommendation Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-15 20:13 +0900
            Re: Debugger Recommendation Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> - 2011-09-15 14:19 +0000

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#9438 — Debugger Recommendation

Hi,

I have never used a debugger and would like to know which one(s) are the 
best.  I prefer one with a graphic interface.

I use gnu c++ and Linux.

Thank you,
Joe

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#9439

On 8/29/2011 10:40 AM, Joseph Hesse wrote:
> I have never used a debugger and would like to know which one(s) are the
> best.

There can only be one "best".  At the same time, it very much depends on 
what your definition of "the best" is, doesn't it?

 > I prefer one with a graphic interface.
>
> I use gnu c++ and Linux.

Then perhaps you should ask in a Linux newsgroup.  Incidentally, I used 
'ddd' and it was acceptable.  During my time working on Linux, 
developers weren't a choosy bunch.

V
-- 
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9440

Le 29/08/11 16:40, Joseph Hesse a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I have never used a debugger and would like to know which one(s) are the
> best. I prefer one with a graphic interface.
>
> I use gnu c++ and Linux.
>
> Thank you,
> Joe

Buy TotalView, it is the best. It comes vith a good GUI

http://www.roguewave.com/products/totalview-family/totalview.aspx

And avoid gdb... It is the worst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9443

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:19:39 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>> I have never used a debugger and would like to know which one(s) are the
>> best. I prefer one with a graphic interface.
>>
> Buy TotalView, it is the best. It comes vith a good GUI
> http://www.roguewave.com/products/totalview-family/totalview.aspx

The "best" because...?

> And avoid gdb... It is the worst

The "worst", because...?

I'm asking because I've been using gdb for years and I haven't seen
anything better than this. It's also free, it's available
everywhere on Linux and it just works. 
True, for GUI users, it may suck. But not because it's a bad
debugger, only.. it has no GUI, and third party GUIs are not
state-of-art.
However to me, lack of GUI is actually an advantage.

Br.
Waldek

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9445

On 08/30/11 07:37 AM, Waldek M. wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:19:39 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>>> I have never used a debugger and would like to know which one(s) are the
>>> best. I prefer one with a graphic interface.
>>>
>> Buy TotalView, it is the best. It comes vith a good GUI
>> http://www.roguewave.com/products/totalview-family/totalview.aspx
>
> The "best" because...?
>
>> And avoid gdb... It is the worst
>
> The "worst", because...?
>
> I'm asking because I've been using gdb for years and I haven't seen
> anything better than this. It's also free, it's available
> everywhere on Linux and it just works.
> True, for GUI users, it may suck. But not because it's a bad
> debugger, only.. it has no GUI, and third party GUIs are not
> state-of-art.

I guess those who use Eclipse or NetBeans would disagree with you about 
the state of the art!

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9448

Le 29/08/11 21:51, Ian Collins a écrit :
> On 08/30/11 07:37 AM, Waldek M. wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:19:39 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>>>> I have never used a debugger and would like to know which one(s) are
>>>> the
>>>> best. I prefer one with a graphic interface.
>>>>
>>> Buy TotalView, it is the best. It comes vith a good GUI
>>> http://www.roguewave.com/products/totalview-family/totalview.aspx
>>
>> The "best" because...?
>>
>>> And avoid gdb... It is the worst
>>
>> The "worst", because...?
>>
>> I'm asking because I've been using gdb for years and I haven't seen
>> anything better than this. It's also free, it's available
>> everywhere on Linux and it just works.
>> True, for GUI users, it may suck. But not because it's a bad
>> debugger, only.. it has no GUI, and third party GUIs are not
>> state-of-art.
>
> I guess those who use Eclipse or NetBeans would disagree with you about
> the state of the art!
>

STATE OF THE ART!!!

GDB STATE OF THE ART!!!

Its interface hasn't changed at least since 1990.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9449

On 08/30/11 08:52 AM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 29/08/11 21:51, Ian Collins a écrit :
>> On 08/30/11 07:37 AM, Waldek M. wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm asking because I've been using gdb for years and I haven't seen
>>> anything better than this. It's also free, it's available
>>> everywhere on Linux and it just works.
>>> True, for GUI users, it may suck. But not because it's a bad
>>> debugger, only.. it has no GUI, and third party GUIs are not
>>> state-of-art.
>>
>> I guess those who use Eclipse or NetBeans would disagree with you about
>> the state of the art!
>>
>
> STATE OF THE ART!!!
>
> GDB STATE OF THE ART!!!
>
> Its interface hasn't changed at least since 1990.

I was referring to the IDEs, not the debugger.

Dressing mutton as lamb is part of an IDE designer's job!

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9450

Le 29/08/11 22:56, Ian Collins a écrit :
> On 08/30/11 08:52 AM, jacob navia wrote:
>> Le 29/08/11 21:51, Ian Collins a écrit :
>>> On 08/30/11 07:37 AM, Waldek M. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm asking because I've been using gdb for years and I haven't seen
>>>> anything better than this. It's also free, it's available
>>>> everywhere on Linux and it just works.
>>>> True, for GUI users, it may suck. But not because it's a bad
>>>> debugger, only.. it has no GUI, and third party GUIs are not
>>>> state-of-art.
>>>
>>> I guess those who use Eclipse or NetBeans would disagree with you about
>>> the state of the art!
>>>
>>
>> STATE OF THE ART!!!
>>
>> GDB STATE OF THE ART!!!
>>
>> Its interface hasn't changed at least since 1990.
>
> I was referring to the IDEs, not the debugger.
>
> Dressing mutton as lamb is part of an IDE designer's job!
>
No. I wrote a debugger complete with GUI for the lcc-win
system and I did not use any underlying gdb or other debugger.

 > Dressing mutton as lamb is part of an IDE designer's job!

That's exactly what many "ide" designers think, and that is
why the "ide"s of linux SUCK so much. They are completely USELESS.

An IDE must IMPROVE the command line programs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9451

On 08/30/11 09:00 AM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 29/08/11 22:56, Ian Collins a écrit :
>> On 08/30/11 08:52 AM, jacob navia wrote:
>>> Le 29/08/11 21:51, Ian Collins a écrit :
>>>> On 08/30/11 07:37 AM, Waldek M. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm asking because I've been using gdb for years and I haven't seen
>>>>> anything better than this. It's also free, it's available
>>>>> everywhere on Linux and it just works.
>>>>> True, for GUI users, it may suck. But not because it's a bad
>>>>> debugger, only.. it has no GUI, and third party GUIs are not
>>>>> state-of-art.
>>>>
>>>> I guess those who use Eclipse or NetBeans would disagree with you about
>>>> the state of the art!
>>>>
>>>
>>> STATE OF THE ART!!!
>>>
>>> GDB STATE OF THE ART!!!
>>>
>>> Its interface hasn't changed at least since 1990.
>>
>> I was referring to the IDEs, not the debugger.
>>
>> Dressing mutton as lamb is part of an IDE designer's job!
>>
> No. I wrote a debugger complete with GUI for the lcc-win
> system and I did not use any underlying gdb or other debugger.

Does it do the hard but useful stuff like following the child and parent 
across process creation?  We all have different needs in a debugger.

>   >  Dressing mutton as lamb is part of an IDE designer's job!
>
> That's exactly what many "ide" designers think, and that is
> why the "ide"s of linux SUCK so much. They are completely USELESS.

Why do you rant so much?  There are probably many tens of thousands of 
happy, productive Eclipse and NetBeans users going about their daily 
business.  If my preferred NetBeans based IDE (Sun Studio) was 
completely useless, I'd be in a bit of a bind.

> An IDE must IMPROVE the command line programs.

They do that through visualisation and hyper-links.  Being able to see 
more than one view of a call stack, more than one collection of data or 
the status of multiple threads is where the IDE shines.

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9460

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 23:00:42 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

> No. I wrote a debugger complete with GUI for the lcc-win
> system and I did not use any underlying gdb or other debugger.

How good is its macro system? E.g. can you define custom printing
functions for key data types?

Without this feature, debugging the C portions of a high-level language
(where practically all of the data are Lisp_Object or PyObject* or
whatever) is a nightmare.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9575

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:51:32 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
>> True, for GUI users, it may suck. But not because it's a bad
>> debugger, only.. it has no GUI, and third party GUIs are not
>> state-of-art.
> 
> I guess those who use Eclipse or NetBeans would disagree with you about 
> the state of the art!

Well... I do sometimes use Eclipse, never used NetBeans though.
The first one does suck for the debugging part *IMVHO* but
that's just IMO. I like it how it indexes the code though,
and how it integrates the plugins for almost everything I can think of.

Yet, I prefer pure gdb when it comes to debugging.

Br.
Waldek

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10015 — [OT] Re: Debugger Recommendation

"Waldek M." <wm@localhost.localdomain> wrote in news:ojzp2ooby37a
$.dlg@localhost.localdomain:
> 
> Yet, I prefer pure gdb when it comes to debugging.

Just yesterday I was trying to debug something in gdb and stomped over an 
old problem: how to step into a function call without evaluating 
parameters? If I use "step" then it enters into construction of arguments, 
but which I am not interested in and which tend to bring me in deep 
internals of STL; when I now use "next" or "finish" to return from the 
argument construction it will step over the function call altogether. I 
could put a breakpoint in the beginning of the function, but this is a 
virtual call and I do not know the actual run-time type of the object.

I'm just curious how are such tasks accomplished in gdb? What happens with 
me is that I usually give up and try to reconstruct and debug the problem 
on Windows instead.

Cheers
Paavo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10016 — Re: [OT] Re: Debugger Recommendation

Le 10/09/11 09:17, Paavo Helde a écrit :
> "Waldek M."<wm@localhost.localdomain>  wrote in news:ojzp2ooby37a
> $.dlg@localhost.localdomain:
>>
>> Yet, I prefer pure gdb when it comes to debugging.
>
> Just yesterday I was trying to debug something in gdb and stomped over an
> old problem: how to step into a function call without evaluating
> parameters? If I use "step" then it enters into construction of arguments,
> but which I am not interested in and which tend to bring me in deep
> internals of STL; when I now use "next" or "finish" to return from the
> argument construction it will step over the function call altogether. I
> could put a breakpoint in the beginning of the function, but this is a
> virtual call and I do not know the actual run-time type of the object.
>

My solution to this was always to disassemble the current context, find
out the address of the call and put a breakpoint at that machine
instruction.

Obviously you should know a bit of assembly to do this.

 From a debuggers perspective it is difficult to do (my debugger doesn't
do it well either) since you can have a lot of function calls in the
arguments construction.

> I'm just curious how are such tasks accomplished in gdb? What happens with
> me is that I usually give up and try to reconstruct and debug the problem
> on Windows instead.
>

Well, it is easy to develop under linux if you have a windows system
to debug your code available. At work all our linux development is done
using the windows debugger. gdb is very difficult to use with C++ since
there is no "go to definition" with just a right mouse click in the
debugger.

Problem is if the MSVC and the gcc compilers disagree for whatever
reason, and you can't reproduce the bug under windows. Then you have
to use gdb.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10017 — Re: [OT] Re: Debugger Recommendation

On 09/10/11 08:00 PM, jacob navia wrote:
>
> Well, it is easy to develop under linux if you have a windows system
> to debug your code available. At work all our linux development is done
> using the windows debugger. gdb is very difficult to use with C++ since
> there is no "go to definition" with just a right mouse click in the
> debugger.

Well there is if you are using NetBeans (and probably Eclipse as well).

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10019 — Re: [OT] Re: Debugger Recommendation

Le 10/09/11 11:14, Ian Collins a écrit :
> On 09/10/11 08:00 PM, jacob navia wrote:
>>
>> Well, it is easy to develop under linux if you have a windows system
>> to debug your code available. At work all our linux development is done
>> using the windows debugger. gdb is very difficult to use with C++ since
>> there is no "go to definition" with just a right mouse click in the
>> debugger.
>
> Well there is if you are using NetBeans (and probably Eclipse as well).
>

Sure, but the problem with Eclipse is that is VERY heavy. To start
Eclipse takes around 4 minutes in a PowerPC machine (4 processors).
It must start the java virtual machine, then analyze the code,
etc etc.

The software is quite big, with a LOT of files, classes, templates
what have you, and until Eclipse analyzes all that... it takes time.

MSVC is much faster, and the debugger is very good. The debugger
I wrote is faster than MSVC but (obviously) it doesn't do C++,
only C and has much less work to do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10020 — Re: [OT] Re: Debugger Recommendation

On 09/10/11 09:26 PM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 10/09/11 11:14, Ian Collins a écrit :
>> On 09/10/11 08:00 PM, jacob navia wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, it is easy to develop under linux if you have a windows system
>>> to debug your code available. At work all our linux development is done
>>> using the windows debugger. gdb is very difficult to use with C++ since
>>> there is no "go to definition" with just a right mouse click in the
>>> debugger.
>>
>> Well there is if you are using NetBeans (and probably Eclipse as well).
>>
>
> Sure, but the problem with Eclipse is that is VERY heavy. To start
> Eclipse takes around 4 minutes in a PowerPC machine (4 processors).
> It must start the java virtual machine, then analyze the code,
> etc etc.

Well it is written in Java...

I don't restart my IDE that often, usually after earthquakes and other 
quake related power outages!

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10022 — Re: [OT] Re: Debugger Recommendation

jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote in
news:j4f5ec$5v5$1@speranza.aioe.org: 

> Le 10/09/11 09:17, Paavo Helde a écrit :
>> "Waldek M."<wm@localhost.localdomain>  wrote in news:ojzp2ooby37a
>> $.dlg@localhost.localdomain:
>>>
>>> Yet, I prefer pure gdb when it comes to debugging.
>>
>> Just yesterday I was trying to debug something in gdb and stomped
>> over an old problem: how to step into a function call without
>> evaluating parameters? If I use "step" then it enters into
>> construction of arguments, but which I am not interested in and which
>> tend to bring me in deep internals of STL; when I now use "next" or
>> "finish" to return from the argument construction it will step over
>> the function call altogether. I could put a breakpoint in the
>> beginning of the function, but this is a virtual call and I do not
>> know the actual run-time type of the object. 
>>
> 
> My solution to this was always to disassemble the current context,
> find out the address of the call and put a breakpoint at that machine
> instruction.
> 
> Obviously you should know a bit of assembly to do this.

Thanks for the tip, will try out next time (though my asm skills are 
quite rusty)!

> 
>  From a debuggers perspective it is difficult to do (my debugger
>  doesn't 
> do it well either) since you can have a lot of function calls in the
> arguments construction.
> 
>> I'm just curious how are such tasks accomplished in gdb? What happens
>> with me is that I usually give up and try to reconstruct and debug
>> the problem on Windows instead.
>>
> 
> Well, it is easy to develop under linux if you have a windows system
> to debug your code available. At work all our linux development is
> done using the windows debugger. gdb is very difficult to use with C++
> since there is no "go to definition" with just a right mouse click in
> the debugger.

Yes, this would be a good feature - if it worked. In VC2008 it sometimes 
worked, sometimes not. In VC2010 it has become totally useless, I suspect 
it now works more reliably but it turned my machine so slow I had to turn 
the background regeneration off and now I never have patience to wait for 
it to find the definition/declaration, doing a grep over all the code 
base and visually locating the definition in the results is much faster.

Cheers
Paavo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10026

On Sep 10, 8:17 am, Paavo Helde <myfirstn...@osa.pri.ee> wrote:
> "Waldek M." <w...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in news:ojzp2ooby37a
> $....@localhost.localdomain:
>
>
>
> > Yet, I prefer pure gdb when it comes to debugging.
>
> Just yesterday I was trying to debug something in gdb and stomped over an
> old problem: how to step into a function call without evaluating
> parameters? If I use "step" then it enters into construction of arguments,
> but which I am not interested in and which tend to bring me in deep
> internals of STL; when I now use "next" or "finish" to return from the
> argument construction it will step over the function call altogether. I
> could put a breakpoint in the beginning of the function, but this is a
> virtual call and I do not know the actual run-time type of the object.
>
> I'm just curious how are such tasks accomplished in gdb? What happens with
> me is that I usually give up and try to reconstruct and debug the problem
> on Windows instead.

how do you do this on windows? Say with Visual Studio.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10029

Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:05e0529a-647f-45fb-922d-9b2414876fed@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com: 

> On Sep 10, 8:17 am, Paavo Helde <myfirstn...@osa.pri.ee> wrote:
>> "Waldek M." <w...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in news:ojzp2ooby37a
>> $....@localhost.localdomain:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Yet, I prefer pure gdb when it comes to debugging.
>>
>> Just yesterday I was trying to debug something in gdb and stomped
>> over an old problem: how to step into a function call without
>> evaluating parameters? If I use "step" then it enters into
>> construction of arguments 
> ,
>> but which I am not interested in and which tend to bring me in deep
>> internals of STL; when I now use "next" or "finish" to return from
>> the argument construction it will step over the function call
>> altogether. I could put a breakpoint in the beginning of the
>> function, but this is a virtual call and I do not know the actual
>> run-time type of the object. 
>>
>> I'm just curious how are such tasks accomplished in gdb? What happens
>> wit 
> h
>> me is that I usually give up and try to reconstruct and debug the
>> problem on Windows instead.
> 
> how do you do this on windows? Say with Visual Studio.
> 

In Visual Studio repeated keypresses of F11 and Shift+F11 finally get me 
into the desired function. A bit cumbersome if there are many arguments, 
but usually I do not have more than 5 or so. 

Also, in Visual Studio the hovering tooltips and watch window are able to 
tell me the dynamic type of the object so I could put a breakpoint in the 
correct virtual function if I wanted.

Cheers
Paavo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9447

Le 29/08/11 21:37, Waldek M. a écrit :
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:19:39 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>>> I have never used a debugger and would like to know which one(s) are the
>>> best. I prefer one with a graphic interface.
>>>
>> Buy TotalView, it is the best. It comes vith a good GUI
>> http://www.roguewave.com/products/totalview-family/totalview.aspx
>
> The "best" because...?
>
>> And avoid gdb... It is the worst
>
> The "worst", because...?
>
> I'm asking because I've been using gdb for years and I haven't seen
> anything better than this. It's also free, it's available
> everywhere on Linux and it just works.
> True, for GUI users, it may suck. But not because it's a bad
> debugger, only.. it has no GUI, and third party GUIs are not
> state-of-art.
> However to me, lack of GUI is actually an advantage.
>


Why I hate gdb?

Let me count the ways:

1) No user interface that is conceived to help the user
   debug its program. Obscure commands full of exceptions and
   gotchas, and cryptic commands. For instance to get the registers
   you write:

   info registers

   And then you discover that the floating point registers
   are missing. How do you print those?

   info float

   Why "float"? They are registers like any other! But
   remember: "Do NOT try to undertand gdb. It has to be
   learnt by heart"

   I have never figured out how do I print the MMX registers
   alone. Apparently is impossible.

   The original poster said: "I have never used a debugger".
   Gdb couldn't be a worst introduction to a debugger.

2) Commands are difficult to use. Example "disassemble".
    When entered, this command doesn't intermix C source code
    with the disassembly as almost all other debuggers do.
    It will print the whole current function scrolling away
    all your context. It will not (as Microsoft debugger does)
    give you the symbolic name of addresses, even if it does
    know that information since the program was compiled with
    debug info.

3) Commands use a special syntax with some commands having
    a special "mini language" that you have to know by heart.

    x/10i $pc

    Clear isn't it? And very easy to remember of course.

4) Not to speak about its completely outdated command line
    interface, that forces you to write "list" again and again
    to see where you are in the source code. If emacs (another
    gnu product) can use termcaps and have a text mode "full
    screen" console why gdb can't?

This debugger hasn't improved anything in its user interface
since 1980 more or less. But all people that love GNU love
gdb and I will get flamed endlessly by them for telling that
gdb has no clothes!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web