On 5/17/12, Tom Tromey <tro...@redhat.com> wrote: > > "Lawrence" == Lawrence Crowl <cr...@google.com> writes: > > Tom> Doesn't this mean that if you have checking enabled, and you use > Tom> the wrong macro on some tree, cc1 will crash? That seems like > Tom> a distinct minus to me. > > Lawrence> Yes, it does mean that, but it is a net overall improvement. > > It is a net debugging improvement compared to trunk, but not > compared to using 'macro define's.
If you know about them and your debuggers supports them. It was two years before I learned about those macros. By moving the source closer to standard code, we reduce the frustration for new developers. I was particularly frustrated by this problem. > It would be nice if there were a way to make cc1 not crash due > to user error in the debugger. I think this kind of crash will > be especially crazy-making. Agreed. Intercept abort in gdb? > Lawrence> These extensions are not on gdb's list of things to > Lawrence> implement. > > As a digression - I guess they could be. That would certainly help in several when using gdb. It would not help if someone needs or wants to use a different debugger. > Reusing the compiler for this seems like the only way to go. > But, we did look at using g++ to parse C++ expressions from gdb, > and it was too slow :-(. We're going to look again, at least to > generate some bug reports if we can. It's a tough problem, particularly as C/C++ and their compilers were not designed for a read-eval-print-loop environment. -- Lawrence Crowl
