ANNOUNCE: WinGDB - debugging with GDB under Visual Studio

[Dominic WG]

Hello,

WinGDB is an extension for Visual Studio IDE allowing to use GDB
debugger. It can debug processes on remote machines running Linux (or
other Unix systems) through SSH connection, Windows programs compiled
under MinGW or Cygwin, and embedded ARM devices using OpenOCD.

Please visit our site: http://www.wingdb.com

Kind Regards,
WinGDB team

 

[jacob navia]

Dominic WG a écrit :

Hello,

WinGDB is an extension for Visual Studio IDE allowing to use GDB
debugger. It can debug processes on remote machines running Linux (or
other Unix systems) through SSH connection, Windows programs compiled
under MinGW or Cygwin, and embedded ARM devices using OpenOCD.

Please visit our site: http://www.wingdb.com

Kind Regards,
WinGDB team

This is incredible

These guys are selling gdb (packed in a Visual Studio plug in) at 47.5
euros per machine...

Why would anyone want to use gdb after having bought Visual Studio with
its great debugger is a mystery to me.

 

[Dann Corbit]

Dominic WG a écrit :

This is incredible

These guys are selling gdb (packed in a Visual Studio plug in) at 47.5
euros per machine...

Why would anyone want to use gdb after having bought Visual Studio with
its great debugger is a mystery to me.

Even more amusing is that GDB is GPL3 and they are not distributing
source (apparently). I wonder if the FSF will get the joke.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Even more amusing is that GDB is GPL3 and they are not distributing
source (apparently). I wonder if the FSF will get the joke.

<OT>
If it merely invokes gdb, and they don't ship gdb itself, there
shouldn't be a problem.
</OT>

 

[Ian Collins]

Dominic WG a écrit :

This is incredible

These guys are selling gdb (packed in a Visual Studio plug in) at 47.5
euros per machine...

Why would anyone want to use gdb after having bought Visual Studio with
its great debugger is a mystery to me.

Maybe because of "It can debug processes on remote machines running
Linux..".

Although I'd say why not use a native IDE? The answer is probably
familiarity with the tools. If I had a windows team who had to port to
a Unix environment, I'd want them as productive as possible as soon as
possible.

 

[REH]

Dominic WG a écrit :





This is incredible

These guys are selling gdb (packed in a Visual Studio plug in) at 47.5
euros per machine...

Why would anyone want to use gdb after having bought Visual Studio with
its great debugger is a mystery to me.

I think that's the point. Visual Studio has an awesome GUI debugger,
but it won't debug code built with other compilers, remote sessions,
embedded devices, etc. If they'd fully integrated GDB into VS, I'd buy
it. Existing frontends for GDB are horrible.

REH

 

[Alan Curry]

|> Hello,
|>
|> WinGDB is an extension for Visual Studio IDE allowing to use GDB
|> debugger. It can debug processes on remote machines running Linux (or
|> other Unix systems) through SSH connection, Windows programs compiled
|> under MinGW or Cygwin, and embedded ARM devices using OpenOCD.
|>
|> Please visit our site: http://[[spammerlinkremoved]]
|>
|> Kind Regards,
|> WinGDB team
|
|This is incredible
|
|These guys are selling gdb (packed in a Visual Studio plug in) at 47.5
|euros per machine...

This lousy googlegruper has been slow-motion multiposting (a.k.a. spamming)
its advertisement to every conceivably-related newsgroup over the past 2 or 3
days.

Don't buy products from spammers, especially software, how do you knowi t's
not backdoored so they can spam from your machine when you run it?

 

[Phred Phungus]

I think that's the point. Visual Studio has an awesome GUI debugger,
but it won't debug code built with other compilers, remote sessions,
embedded devices, etc. If they'd fully integrated GDB into VS, I'd buy
it. Existing frontends for GDB are horrible.

REH

That's where I'm looking at this. Gdb is a hardship compared to the
visual debuggers I used to have when I used M$.

I don't think I'd give these people any money, tho.

 

[REH]

That's where I'm looking at this.  Gdb is a hardship compared to the
visual debuggers I used to have when I used M$.

The best I've found when I use GCC on Windows is a build of Insight
for MinGW:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/min...e_ gdb-6.6/insight-6.6-mingw.tar.bz2/download

 

[Phred Phungus]

The best I've found when I use GCC on Windows is a build of Insight
for MinGW:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/min...e_ gdb-6.6/insight-6.6-mingw.tar.bz2/download

What about front ends for gdb on ubuntu?

 

[Nick Keighley]

Maybe because of "It can debug processes on remote machines running
Linux..".

Although I'd say why not use a native IDE?

because it's crap?

 The answer is probably
familiarity with the tools.  If I had a windows team who had to port to
a Unix environment, I'd want them as productive as possible as soon as
possible.

some people have window's machines on their desks and develop for unix
machines. Tho' ddd is pretty good.

X is never going to look as pretty as Windows.

<duck>

 

[jacob navia]

Nick Keighley a écrit :

because it's crap?


some people have window's machines on their desks and develop for unix
machines. Tho' ddd is pretty good.

X is never going to look as pretty as Windows.

<duck>

Unix can look very good though. I am writing this message in a Mac OS X.
Nice machine, rock solid, BSD Unix, incredibly sophisticated GUI, high
quality graphics, fast processor/machine, you see immediately it is not
a PC.

Recommended.

MILES and MILES beyond Ubuntu. Sorry guys, but just use Mac OS X if you
want Unix. It has even lcc-win (ported last month).

 

[Ian Collins]

because it's crap?

Humbug! I've been developing on Unix for way too long and I'm happy
with the tools I have. I never could get used to those everything in
one frame windows IDEs.

some people have window's machines on their desks and develop for unix
machines. Tho' ddd is pretty good.

I used to do the opposite..

X is never going to look as pretty as Windows.

True, but at least I can log into a client's machine on the other side
of town and pop up editors on my desktop!

 

[jacob navia]

Lorenzo Villari a écrit :

Maybe Leopard is tuned for a specific hardware. I don't know how it
would perform on different machines...

Of course it is tuned to Apple hardware!

What else would you expect?

The result is what counts, not that it runs in your
coffee machine also. You want high quality and you get
high quality. Hardware and softare.

I plugged an SATA disk without any cables. ALl the bugs
because of that dammed SATA cables that do not fit
correctly are gone.

It is not a PC, but quite impressing.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Lorenzo Villari a écrit :

Of course it is tuned to Apple hardware!

What else would you expect?

The previous poster is implying that Linux (of which Ubuntu is one
specific instance) runs on many different hardware architectures and
that that makes it harder to optimize it for one specific piece of
hardware. This gives things like Mac OSX an "unfair" advantage.

But what it really boils down to is that if you want cross-hardware and
free, you have to sacrifice visual optimality. It is clear that the
designers of Linux, X, KDE, et al, made this decision early on (to go
with the first 2 and sacrifice the last) and are happy with their
decision.

P.S. Like your comment about the coffee-maker. Very appropriate.

 

[REH]

What about front ends for gdb on ubuntu?

There are a lot of GDB frontends Linux: Insight, KDBG, DDD, Eclipse. I
don't think any are as good as VS. My issue is I do a lot of GCC on
Windows, but GUIs for it are few an far between. And again, they are a
far cry from VS.

REH

 

[Phred Phungus]

There are a lot of GDB frontends Linux: Insight, KDBG, DDD, Eclipse. I
don't think any are as good as VS. My issue is I do a lot of GCC on
Windows, but GUIs for it are few an far between. And again, they are a
far cry from VS.

REH

Thx, that's good to know. My debuggers have been print statements since
I went gnu.

Question for you: if you had to coach a person with abilities and means
like your own through a useful mingw install, how long would that take?

 

[Nick Keighley]

I suppose I was trolling, in the classic sense

Humbug!  I've been developing on Unix for way too long and I'm happy
with the tools I have.  I never could get used to those everything in
one frame windows IDEs.

I like it that you can make them all disappear with one click. Neither
Windows nor X are glued to one particular approach.

[X-Window] is never going to look as pretty as Windows.

True, but at least I can log into a client's machine on the other side
of town and pop up editors on my desktop!

my files are in another country and I can do that (admittedly there's
some X-Window glue in there!)

 

[REH]

Thx, that's good to know.  My debuggers have been print statements since
I went gnu.

Question for you: if you had to coach a person with abilities and means
like your own through a useful mingw install, how long would that take?

Installing MinGW is not hard. They have an auto-install executable on
SourgeForge. I don't use it though, I just download the pieces I want
and extract them to the same directory. There is a trick you need to
do with G++ 4.X. It is not a full install. You need to have an older
3.X installed first, then put 4.x on top of it (unless they have since
fixed it).

So, just download MinGW, its support libraries, and the tools you want
(gcc, make, etc.), and extract them all in the same directory.

After that, just update your PATH to point to MinGW's bin directory,
and you can execute gcc as you would normally. MSYS is also nice if
you want a BASH shell, but I just use CMD.

REH

 

[Flash Gordon]

Thx, that's good to know. My debuggers have been print statements since
I went gnu.

Question for you: if you had to coach a person with abilities and means
like your own through a useful mingw install, how long would that take?

As long as it takes to say, "find MinGW and install it". It took me
twice as long to tell someone with less abilities than me to do a useful
(for his purposes) install of Cygwin, because I had to specify a few
packages to be selected.

Personally I like MSVC, but most of my development currently is for Linux.