Re: Debugger Recommendation

Discussion in 'C++' started by jacob navia, Aug 29, 2011.

  1. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    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
    jacob navia, Aug 29, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jacob navia

    Waldek M. Guest

    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
    Waldek M., Aug 29, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jacob navia

    Ian Collins Guest

    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
    Ian Collins, Aug 29, 2011
    #3
  4. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    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!
    jacob navia, Aug 29, 2011
    #4
  5. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    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.
    jacob navia, Aug 29, 2011
    #5
  6. jacob navia

    Ian Collins Guest

    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
    Ian Collins, Aug 29, 2011
    #6
  7. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    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.
    jacob navia, Aug 29, 2011
    #7
  8. jacob navia

    Ian Collins Guest

    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
    Ian Collins, Aug 29, 2011
    #8
  9. jacob navia

    Nobody Guest

    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.
    Nobody, Aug 30, 2011
    #9
  10. jacob navia

    Waldek M. Guest

    On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:51:46 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
    > 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:

    [CUT]

    All your arguments are actually one argument: you hate it that
    it has no built-in GUI. And I can accept it, sure. Just use one that has
    one. And works. As simple as that.
    Or use ddd/kdbg/whatever if you don't hate them as much.
    Don't if you don't. Use some other. Write your own.
    Maintain your own. You do? Oh, great. Share it with others,
    if you like.

    Only, please don't tell everyone around that the debugger
    is of low quality because you don't like its interface.
    Just write that for you its UI is crappy. Do we have a deal? ;-)

    > 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!


    You're point being...?
    (a rethorical question, just in case)

    Best regards,
    Waldek
    Waldek M., Aug 31, 2011
    #10
  11. jacob navia

    Waldek M. Guest

    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
    Waldek M., Aug 31, 2011
    #11
  12. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 31/08/11 21:11, Waldek M. a écrit :
    > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:51:46 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
    >> 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:

    > [CUT]
    >


    You CUT all arguments that prove why I think the interface is a pile
    of Sh$t.

    And I am speaking about the command line interface please, no GUI.


    Because, as you (may) know, a command line INTERFACE is exactly
    that, an interface that allows the human to control the software.

    No Mouse, no windows. But INTERFACE anyway.

    > All your arguments are actually one argument: you hate it that
    > it has no built-in GUI.


    No. It coud have a better command line interface, even if it
    doesn't have any GUI.

    > And I can accept it, sure. Just use one that has
    > one. And works. As simple as that.
    > Or use ddd/kdbg/whatever if you don't hate them as much.
    > Don't if you don't. Use some other. Write your own.
    > Maintain your own. You do? Oh, great. Share it with others,
    > if you like.
    >
    > Only, please don't tell everyone around that the debugger
    > is of low quality because you don't like its interface.
    > Just write that for you its UI is crappy. Do we have a deal? ;-)
    >


    I wrfote just that with examples, and you ignored them.

    Just CUT, of course, no discussion whatsoever.

    >> 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!

    >
    > You're point being...?


    That GNU has forgotten what *innovation* and *redesign* mean.

    It is impossible to criticize anything GNU because of its
    political goals: either you are FOR us, and then you should
    swallow our pile of sh$t without any complaints, or you are
    against us, then you are a micro$oft moron etc.

    Look how you *avoided* any concrete discussion about the concrete
    examples I underscored. Nothing, no concrete discussion
    in your reply.

    Why?

    Because of the "political" goals of GNU.

    GNU?

    *G*nu is *N*ot *U*sable


    (a rethorical answer, just in case)
    >
    > Best regards,
    > jacob
    jacob navia, Aug 31, 2011
    #12
  13. jacob navia

    Waldek M. Guest

    On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:17:23 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

    > Le 31/08/11 21:11, Waldek M. a écrit :
    >> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:51:46 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
    >>> 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:

    >> [CUT]
    >>

    >
    > You CUT all arguments that prove why I think the interface is a pile
    > of Sh$t.


    And what exactly is the point of repeating 4 different reasons for one
    simple thing: you hate gdb UI? I really got the message :)


    >> All your arguments are actually one argument: you hate it that
    >> it has no built-in GUI.

    >
    > No. It coud have a better command line interface, even if it
    > doesn't have any GUI.


    All right then, I must have misunderstood then. You hate the gdb
    UI, and you'd prefer that it has GUI.

    [...]
    > I wrfote just that with examples, and you ignored them.
    >
    > Just CUT, of course, no discussion whatsoever.


    That's because there's nothing to discuss with.
    I accept it that those are the reasons why *you* hate gdb, while at the
    same time, this reasons are either meaningless to me, or are actually an
    advantage.

    >> You're point being...?

    >
    > That GNU has forgotten what *innovation* and *redesign* mean.


    I might have agreed somewhat with you at that: see gmake development cycle,
    and yes - that of gdb. One could argue whether that's because of innovation
    or because of lack of support. But your generalization has proven you
    wrong, so I say: Yeah, right.

    Especially the Gnu Compiler Collection, which also
    has been abandoned since 1990, right? ;)
    And Gnome, which has never changed since its first release.
    And all that GPL and LGPL software that Google can display and lots of
    people use everyday: Audacity, Pidgin, Octave, Blender... no, they don't
    exist, they must have been my dream.

    Have a nice day :)

    Waldek
    Waldek M., Sep 1, 2011
    #13
  14. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    Re: [OT] Re: Debugger Recommendation

    Le 10/09/11 09:17, Paavo Helde a écrit :
    > "Waldek M."<> wrote in news:eek:jzp2ooby37a
    > $:
    >>
    >> 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.
    jacob navia, Sep 10, 2011
    #14
  15. jacob navia

    Ian Collins Guest

    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
    Ian Collins, Sep 10, 2011
    #15
  16. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    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.
    jacob navia, Sep 10, 2011
    #16
  17. jacob navia

    Ian Collins Guest

    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
    Ian Collins, Sep 10, 2011
    #17
  18. On Sep 10, 8:17 am, Paavo Helde <> wrote:
    > "Waldek M." <> wrote in news:eek:jzp2ooby37a
    > $:
    >
    >
    >
    > > 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.
    Nick Keighley, Sep 10, 2011
    #18
  19. jacob navia

    DeMarcus Guest

    On 08/29/2011 07:19 PM, jacob navia wrote:
    > 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


    The problem we face with TotalView is that the binaries must contain the
    symbols on the target machine. This may be problematic on embedded
    systems where disk space is limited. GDB (GDB server) does not need the
    symbols on the target.

    Another problem (for Eclipse users) is that TotalView's plugin for
    Eclipse seems outdated.


    /Daniel
    DeMarcus, Sep 22, 2011
    #19
  20. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 22/09/11 08:57, DeMarcus a écrit :
    > On 08/29/2011 07:19 PM, jacob navia wrote:
    >> 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

    >
    > The problem we face with TotalView is that the binaries must contain the
    > symbols on the target machine. This may be problematic on embedded
    > systems where disk space is limited. GDB (GDB server) does not need the
    > symbols on the target.
    >
    > Another problem (for Eclipse users) is that TotalView's plugin for
    > Eclipse seems outdated.
    >
    >
    > /Daniel


    Sure, no software is perfect. But for a beginner that has never used a
    debugger (the original poster) it is surely WAAAAAAAY better than gdb,
    excuse me.

    To problem (1), I wrote a debugger for an embedded system using the
    serial interface. My debugger didn't need the symbols in the target
    either, but the problem was that this implied that the stripped
    target was REALLY just a stripped target from the one we had in the
    PC... Reading the actual symbols from the program you are going to
    debug eliminates that problem... at the cost of using more disk
    space. Nowadays, my phone has 32 GB, so embedded systems with lack of
    space should be rare.

    To problem (2)
    have you asked them for an upgrade?
    What did they say?

    jacob
    jacob navia, Sep 22, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    570
    Charles Bailey
    Feb 11, 2005
  2. Paul
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    321
  3. Jorgen Grahn

    Re: Debugger Recommendation

    Jorgen Grahn, Sep 11, 2011, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    964
    Ian Collins
    Sep 22, 2011
  4. Robert Oschler
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    211
    Mcginkel
    Sep 5, 2005
  5. aflat362
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    209
    naixn
    Dec 7, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page