On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Michael Schwingen <rincew...@discworld.dascon.de> wrote: > 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.
Zach made a good point that there are bug reports we are not receiving today. Those tare the ones he's after here I think. I don't view the two methods as mutually exclusive, but I wonder if creating some end-user debug scripts might be lower hanging fruit... -- Øyvind Harboe US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 63 25 00 http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex JTAG debugger and flash programmer _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
