Three weeks ago I was trying to find a crash in Agent. Since I don't know the
code of wine so well I tried to do this with a debugger. My experience was
rather frustrating. GDB and winegdb are not exactly what I call userfriendly.
On a Windows system I would have found this error within a few hours but I
didn't come to terms with winedbg and gdb. So I was looking for an alternative
and I found a project on sourceforge named pICE.
what didn't you like in gdb and winedbg ? trying to port pice to wine would be rather an heavy task I don't really what you will gain with pICE
> This project was abandoned
about two years ago, but I was interested in it and now I got theI personnaly don't see an interest. It's already a burden to maintain winedbg, so maintaining a second debugger doesn't seem right to me
administration for it. pICE is a kernel debugger for linux similar to SoftICE
and I thought it would be nice to have such a tool. My intention is to add
extensions to support wine debugging as well (this was my primary reason) and
now I would like to know if this is would be of interest to you as well
and ifROS port uses a specific device driver, which will be fun to implement in wine
yes (what I hope :) ) what extensions are needed in order to support wine.
> I
winedbg has been inspired by gdb, but it is not an extension of gdb (as a standalone debugger). But, you're may be talking of the proxy feature of winedbg which lets gdb talk to wine thru gdb's remote protocolguess that winedbg is similar in that respect that it is also an extension of gdb, am I right?
Again, I don't see what pICE will bring you that you don't have in gdb or winedbg. IMO, you should start by explaining this.If somebody knows the details I would like to hear it. But don't expect anything soon because I still need to dig into the code of pICE to make it stable first.
A+
-- Eric Pouech
