Zach Welch wrote: > To be fair, these extra steps also moot my Heisenbug argument; however, > these are still activities that could be expected by these platforms' > users. Running GDB is not a user activity, except _possibly_ when using > it _with_ OpenOCD. Remember, not everyone uses OpenOCD with GDB. > > I consider our "users" to include those developers who want to use > OpenOCD as a replacement for an off-the-shelf tool. Such users do not > want to be told to debug OpenOCD with GDB, but they might be convinced > to install a debugging version of it (e.g. from Git). Too many users > might give up when they hear that they need to run GDB to debug the > feature that causes a crash for them. That goes for any package where > They Just Wanted To Use It. > I don't see why starting gdb to generate a bug report is such a big problem - especially if we provide step-by-step instructions or even a script that does the dirty work.
If you expect the user to install (or even build) a debug-version of openocd, I see no problem to tell the user "run the report-bug script" which then internally starts openocd from gdb and provides the necessary information (backtrace, variables etc.). Installing gdb is easier on most systems than installing/building a debug version of openocd, so I can't see where this fear of using gdb comes from. cu Michael _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
