Re: Gdb

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:49PM +1000, Russell Shaw wrote:
> This makes touching anything unpredictable, as there's too many combinations
> of possible code paths that may or may not be valid.

Guess what?  The conditions aren't orthogonal _for a reason_.

I don't think there's any point in my continuing this conversation, so
this will probably be my last message.  You continue insisting that
the complexity is unnecessary, and yet you don't know why it's there.
I can assure you that it isn't there just to make our lives harder.

> It's undoable by anyone not intimately familiar with the code which
> means weeks of prodding with a second gdb. The payoff is better in
> making something totally different and new.

Having spent many days considering this, talking to others about it,
and even starting it twice, I believe that you are wrong.

There's a lot of payoff in starting from scratch, but (A) you have to
put in just about as much work, and (B) you end up with something
totally different.  If that's your goal, congratulations (I'm thinking
of Frysk here, for instance).  But if you wanted something that looked
like GDB...

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery