Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code |
| Date | 2012-01-11 11:52 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <4F0DBE54.10400@verizon.net> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <0.de456f72e5f943f83dc6.20120109134421GMT.87r4z9at3e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jefa2h$6ms$1@speranza.aioe.org> <jefemv$9u1$1@dont-email.me> <pa7h0zgwyd.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> <jejqnt$ru9$1@dont-email.me> |
On 01/11/2012 06:10 AM, ec429 wrote: ,,, > What, exactly, don't you like about gdb? Does it not hold your hand > enough, poor ickle child? Are there not enough pictures to engage your > attention? The main things I don't like about gdb might actually be features of gcc. The only thing I can say for certain is that the two tools don't communicate with each other properly Even when I compile with optimization turned (supposedly) completely off, I often face the problems like the following: * A variable, whose value I want to check, has been optimized out of existence. * I will advance though the program one step at a time. gdb will display line 34, line 35, line 34, line 35, line 34, etc, which would be fine if they were parts of loop, but is very disconcerting when one of those lines is a comment and the other is a declaration. Eventually it stops cycling between those line numbers, and jumps to line 39, and by examination of the values of various variables, I conclude that what it's actually been doing was executing the loop on lines 36 and 37. * I will single-step through a line of code that supposedly changes the value of a variable, examining the value of that variable before and after execution of the statement, and see the value unchanged. It eventually gets changed, but during what is supposed to be the execution of some other line of code much farther down in the code. I can't be sure whether these problems are the fault of gdb or gcc. However, I only ran into similar problems using the IRIX MIPS-Pro compiler and dbx if I chose optimization levels higher than the lowest possible one. That is why I usually debug with all optimizations turned off - unless turning optimization off makes the bug disappear. I have other problems with gdb as well, but they're just due to lack of experience with the program, I presume. I've been using dbx for more than two decades, possibly three.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 02:26 -0800
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-09 11:47 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-01-09 13:56 +0100
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 05:45 -0800
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-09 14:46 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 01:11 -0800
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 15:58 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2012-01-09 18:41 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 12:23 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-01-09 08:45 -0500
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-01-09 15:02 +0100
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-01-09 16:11 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 05:56 -0800
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 15:07 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 01:21 -0800
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-01-10 13:20 -0600
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 06:57 -0800
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 09:23 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-01-09 13:48 +0100
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-09 13:11 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-09 05:27 -0800
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-09 13:41 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 06:09 -0800
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-01-09 14:35 +0100
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-01-09 13:44 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 06:18 -0800
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-01-09 18:59 +0100
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-01-09 19:01 +0100
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-09 19:21 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 20:48 +0100
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> - 2012-01-10 14:26 -0600
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 21:44 +0100
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> - 2012-01-10 15:45 -0600
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 09:12 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-11 11:10 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-01-11 11:52 -0500
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-11 17:01 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-01-11 12:11 -0500
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 09:08 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 08:22 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 08:54 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-09 13:57 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2012-01-09 19:21 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-09 19:52 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2012-01-09 20:20 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 06:16 -0800
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 06:02 -0800
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-09 14:50 -0800
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-01-09 23:20 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 00:23 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Dirk Zabel <zabel@riccius-sohn.eu> - 2012-01-10 17:44 +0100
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 07:13 -0800
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2012-01-17 20:36 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-17 23:06 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-01-17 15:32 -0800
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-01-18 00:40 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2012-01-18 18:35 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-01-18 19:15 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2012-01-21 21:32 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-01-18 07:26 +0100
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2012-01-18 11:07 +0100
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2012-01-21 21:32 +0000
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-22 10:42 +1300
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-01-22 18:53 +0100
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-01-22 19:00 +0100
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-01-23 19:28 +0100
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-01-18 08:44 -0600
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2012-01-18 07:09 -0800
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-01-18 17:44 +0100
Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2012-01-18 07:58 +0000
csiph-web