[Issue 3389] gdb: using -gc is mandatory but not well documented

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3389

Andrei Alexandrescu and...@erdani.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Version|unspecified |D2

--


[Issue 3389] gdb: using -gc is mandatory but not well documented

2012-02-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389



--- Comment #7 from Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com 
2012-02-02 02:51:50 PST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
 Thats a wrong comparision because neither -g not -ggdb make the compiler
 fake C++ debug information as C. The -gc flag is a hack to masquerade as
 C which should not be the default if -g works for most platforms.

That's not what Walter said (agreeing with Brad's comment) in the comment I
pointed out. But it seems that's not longer the position about -g/-gc (at least
for Brad). I don't care that much about what should be the meaning of -g/-gc as
long as there is one that works (and will keep working) with standard
debuggers.

(In reply to comment #6)
 The bottom line is that -g needs to 'just work' with the standard debuggers on
 the supported platforms.  Assuming that -g works, -gc is a left over 
 appendage.
  A whole lot of progress has been made in a number of commits over the last
 year. 
 
 Some quick testing on linux shows that it works quite well with just -g now.
 
 With that in mind, I'm resolving this bug report as wontfix since -gc isn't
 mandatory any more.
 
 Chances are that there's more bugs left, so please feel encouraged to distill
 repro cases where -g doesn't just work, file them, and we'll work on them.

OK, so -gc should be just deprecated and there should be only -g, right? Will
-gc be the same as -g? If not, why?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---


[Issue 3389] gdb: using -gc is mandatory but not well documented

2012-02-01 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389



--- Comment #4 from d...@dawgfoto.de 2012-02-01 11:27:20 PST ---
Thats a wrong comparision because neither -g not -ggdb make the compiler
fake C++ debug information as C. The -gc flag is a hack to masquerade as
C which should not be the default if -g works for most platforms.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---


[Issue 3389] gdb: using -gc is mandatory but not well documented

2012-02-01 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389



--- Comment #5 from d...@dawgfoto.de 2012-02-01 11:34:57 PST ---
GDB already has D specific extensions (demangling and arrays). Using -g makes
use of them, -gc does not.
There won't be D specific DWARF extensions any time soon.
What we wanted to add can be modeled by newer DWARF versions but adapting them
would break older debuggers.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---


[Issue 3389] gdb: using -gc is mandatory but not well documented

2012-02-01 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389


Brad Roberts bra...@puremagic.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
 CC||bra...@puremagic.com
 Resolution||WONTFIX


--- Comment #6 from Brad Roberts bra...@puremagic.com 2012-02-01 20:54:51 PST 
---
The bottom line is that -g needs to 'just work' with the standard debuggers on
the supported platforms.  Assuming that -g works, -gc is a left over appendage.
 A whole lot of progress has been made in a number of commits over the last
year. 

Some quick testing on linux shows that it works quite well with just -g now.

With that in mind, I'm resolving this bug report as wontfix since -gc isn't
mandatory any more.

Chances are that there's more bugs left, so please feel encouraged to distill
repro cases where -g doesn't just work, file them, and we'll work on them.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---


[Issue 3389] gdb: using -gc is mandatory but not well documented

2012-01-31 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389


d...@dawgfoto.de changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 CC||d...@dawgfoto.de
 Resolution||FIXED


-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---


[Issue 3389] gdb: using -gc is mandatory but not well documented

2010-04-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389



--- Comment #2 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-04-28 09:31:36 
PDT ---
Seems reasonable.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---


[Issue 3389] gdb: using -gc is mandatory but not well documented

2010-04-01 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389


Robert Clipsham rob...@octarineparrot.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rob...@octarineparrot.com


--- Comment #1 from Robert Clipsham rob...@octarineparrot.com 2010-04-01 
13:37:35 BST ---
-g not working is how it's meant to be, at least until gdb adds support for the
D extensions to DWARF. I've hopefully fixed the remaining bugs with -gc (on
linux at least). My solution to this would be to add in a -gd, and make -g an
alias to -gc until better support for debug info is added to debuggers. This
way users get working debug output with -g, and don't blame it on a buggy dmd
:)

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---