On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 11:06 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Zach Welch <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 10:36 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > >> >> > 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? > >> > >> You're not answering the question: > > > > You're not seeing my point. > > > >> How is your solution better than writing a script "openocd" that launches > >> openocd from GDB by default? > > > > You want to _force_ me to _always_ run GDB, to catch random segfaults? > > Explain what's so bad about that, at least for non-releases.
Again, you have missed the point. This is about users and our releases. I cannot make that point more clearly. It is not about developers who are willing to use GDB. It's about users who aren't. > A bt + dumping local variables would be superior to your code > in terms of information provided, right? But not in usability. Right? > > Please tell me (justly) I'm wrong. > > I have not tried your patches, I assume they work and do what > you describe. > > I'm not *against* your patches, I'm just trying to tie up some loose > ends in alternatives we don't seem to have considered yet. There really is no alternative that provides this level of usability, or I would not have bothered to write this code. --Z _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
