On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 10:25 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Zach Welch <z...@superlucidity.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 09:45 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > >> > Hm - I'm with David here: I am not very fond of re-inventing parts of > >> > gdb to include it in OpenOCD. > >> > > >> > Fully implementing this would make OpenOCD depend on libbfd just for > >> > crash reports - this is ridiculous. > >> > >> If something like this was added, it should not create any > >> dependencies or do anything remotely exotic. > >> > >> How about adding an option to statically link with GDB or create > >> a script that launched OpenOCD via GDB as default? > > > > No one was talking about linking with GDB. That's just insane. ;) > > libbfd is part of binutils. But again it should be_optional. > > OK. Explain the benefit of complicating OpenOCD vs. adding a script > to launch OpenOCD via GDB then...
Seriously... you've never had a Heisenbug either? Am I the only one that gets segfaults and doesn't _want_ to have to debug them? Really? --Z _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
