I've never understood the fascination with gdb. To me it's just turgid. I like saying "acid has always worked for me" because it's a fun thing to say but not only is it painlessly useful it is programmable. stk and leak are pretty neat.
brucee On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 5:52 AM, erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net> wrote: > hmm. neither db nor acid work for you? I've found acid to be much easier > to use than gdb, but on my plan 9 projects a few prints are quicker for me > than messing with a debugger. > > unless harvey has added core dumps to plan 9, then post trap debugging > would be via broken processes not core dumps. > > why are you forced into core dump driven development. that makes it > should like the environment isn't an effective on for development. > > - erik > > > On Jul 26, 2015 10:54 AM, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Who claimed fast compilation was a motive? > > From what I understand this is all about being able to use gdb for > debugging. > > > > It makes sense to me, but it might still be subjective. > > If you care I will explain my experience: > > > > Some longer time ago I tried gdb for disassembling some secret binary, > > but quickly gave up cause of the complex interface and reverted to > > objdump instead. I wasted a lot of time and that made me hate gdb a > > lot. > > > > Now, much later I started using gdb again, cause as long as it has > > access to the source analyzing coredumps is very easy. It's a better > > workflow than my printf() debugging, because the Makefiles of the > > project I'm working on are so complex and broken that everybody avoids > > compiling (takes too long). > > I have seen many complaints in Ron's commit logs about makefiles, too. > > I'm fairly certain that for Harvey and Akaros they're pretty much > > forced just like me into a coredump-driven development workflow. > > > > tldr: gcc is needed so that we can use gdb so that we don't have to > > compile as often so that we can fix bugs faster. > > > > On 7/26/15, erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net> wrote: > > > just speaking for myself, I found the fact that plan 9 was a self > contained > > > thing to be a must have. i don't consider the gcc toolchain to be a > > > feature. > > > > > > if "fast compilation" is a feature over plan 9, I'd like to see some > > > numbers. > > > > > > - erik > > > > > > On Jul 25, 2015 3:15 PM, Axel Belinfante > > > <[?&cs=wh&v=b&to=axel.belinfa...@utwente.nl]axel.belinfa...@utwente.nl > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> I couldn’t resist looking, and found > > >> in [ > http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.osnews.com%2Fcomments%2F28699&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGHKFWanYoFNYbSy6In7LAXtMi-tg]http://www.osnews.com/comments/28699 > > >> > > >> "Harvey is an effort to get the Plan 9 code working with gcc and > clang”. > > >> > > >> So, in a way it seems to be a port of Plan 9. > > >> > > >> More details, including the feature list below, are > > >> at [ > http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fharvey-os.org&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNErZ4XfGFvsgbhV-uqEiG8K2pSdYQ]http://harvey-os.org > > >> > > >> Features > > >> > > >> • AMD 64 bit > > >> • Modern, simplified syscall system > > >> • GCC toolchain means you can use gdb(!) > > >> • Compile in Linux or OSX using Harvey's headers and libs, no need to > > >> change anything else > > >> • Fast compilation of the whole system > > >> • All Plan9 userland apps available > > >> • Plans to add X11 with rio-like multiplexing, tty driver, new > fileserver, > > >> native toolchain and more > > >> > > >> I’m intrigued by the “compile … using Harvey's headers and libs, no > need > > >> to change anything else” — > > >> I guess that means that it will be easy to “port” stuff to Harvey? > > >> > > >> The team list contains names well-known on this list... > > >> > > >> I must say, it looks quite interesting, worth checking out. > > >> > > >> Axel. > > >> > > >>> On 25 Jul 2015, at 17:58, Ryan Gonzalez > > >>> <[?&cs=wh&v=b&to=rym...@gmail.com]rym...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >> No clue. I'm guessing it's heavily inspired by Plan 9. > > >> > > >> On July 25, 2015 3:34:13 AM CDT, > > >> "[?&cs=wh&v=b&to=st...@quintile.net]st...@quintile.net" > > >> <[?&cs=wh&v=b&to=st...@quintile.net]st...@quintile.net> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> not sure what Harvey is... is it just plan9 ported to build on gcc? > > >>> > > >>> if so does gcc run under Harvey? > > >>> > > >>> does gcc run under plan9 now? > > >>> > > >>> Steve > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 25 Jul 2015, at 01:43, Ryan Gonzalez > > >>> <[?&cs=wh&v=b&to=rym...@gmail.com]rym...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> [ > https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Fthis-is-not-a-monad-tutorial%2Fharvey-an-operating-system-with-plan-9-s-shadow-3081414e5f0b&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFKZSymwu8nNoZ6I7kp6PyVvp9A1g]https://medium.com/this-is-not-a-monad-tutorial/harvey-an-operating-system-with-plan-9-s-shadow-3081414e5f0b > > >>>> > > >>>> I'm not affiliated with this whatsoever; I just saw it on Reddit and > > >>>> found it interesting. > > >>>> > > >>>> I found this part particularly neat: > > >>>> > > >>>> > We are working in ANSI POSIX environment to have most of well > known > > >>>> > tools and programs that programmers or end users expects to have > in a > > >>>> > modern operating system. Things that for traditional Plan 9 would > be > > >>>> > very difficult to have. > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Sent from my Nexus 5 with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Sent from my Nexus 5 with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > >> > > > > > > > >
