Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/gnu/dist/gcc/gcc/config/i386
To: Matthias Drochner <M.Drochner@fz-juelich.de>
From: James Chacon <jmc@NetBSD.org>
Date: 07/19/2004 15:42:33
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 09:56:03PM +0200, Matthias Drochner wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org said:
> > GDB have problems with stabs; I don't think I have managed to debug
> > any non-trivial program on NetBSD 2.0 without GDB crashing or
> > misbehaving in other ways.
> Just for curiosity - does gdb6 work better, or don't they care
> about stabs either?
> > And you really want dwarf when debugging C++ too.
> > [...]
> Actually, whenever I tried to debug something in-depth I came
> to a point where gdb was useless. Didn't cope with threads, didn't
> show useful stackframes, couldn't singlestep or whatever. I always
> ended up with printf()s or other code instrumentation...
> (That's not to argue about debug symbol formats, just a side note.
> It might explain however why almost noone cares about debugging
> As I said in another mail, when I changed gcc-3.3's default in -current,
> I primaliry wanted to establish something which can be pulled up to
> the 2.0 branch or not, depending on further development. At that point
> I was still optimistic that the dwarf2 output got fixed in the gcc-3.3
> Now Christos had this change pulled up to the branch. For some
> reason supposedly...
Yes...So there was a change someone compiling
gcc -g -o foo foo.c
on 2.0 actually got a binary gdb could do something with. It may have
shortcomings, but working vs. non-working was a pretty significant regression.