www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.debugger - Request: add a flag to get ddbg_gdb behavior

reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Renaming the exe to get different behavior is a neat trick, and I know 
it is relatively common in the Unix world.  It makes sense there because 
symlinks are rock solid.  However, in Windows it means I have to make a 
copy of the exe every time I upgrade ddbg.  I'm not worried about the 
tiny bit of disk space the extra copy uses, but just the annoyance 
factor.  Anyway, I see no real advantage to typing 'ddbg_gdb' vs 'ddbg 
-gdb'.

I think there was also one person who accidentally re-named ddbg as 
ddgb_dbg or something like that, and couldn't figure out why the 
integration with Code::Blocks wasn't working.  If that were a flag the 
program could raise an error saying '-dbg is not a recognized flag'. 
But it would be a bad idea to raise an error about the program name 
itself not being what you expected.

--bb
Apr 04 2007
parent reply Jascha Wetzel <"[firstname]" mainia.de> writes:
i agree.
actually i was getting annoyed by this myself, but apparently not
annoyed enough to induce the idea to change it ;)
since CB won't let you specify command line options for the debugger
atm, i'll add this as a command as well.
it'll be in the next release.

Bill Baxter wrote:
 Renaming the exe to get different behavior is a neat trick, and I know
 it is relatively common in the Unix world.  It makes sense there because
 symlinks are rock solid.  However, in Windows it means I have to make a
 copy of the exe every time I upgrade ddbg.  I'm not worried about the
 tiny bit of disk space the extra copy uses, but just the annoyance
 factor.  Anyway, I see no real advantage to typing 'ddbg_gdb' vs 'ddbg
 -gdb'.
 
 I think there was also one person who accidentally re-named ddbg as
 ddgb_dbg or something like that, and couldn't figure out why the
 integration with Code::Blocks wasn't working.  If that were a flag the
 program could raise an error saying '-dbg is not a recognized flag'. But
 it would be a bad idea to raise an error about the program name itself
 not being what you expected.
 
 --bb

Apr 05 2007
parent Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Jascha Wetzel wrote:
 i agree.
 actually i was getting annoyed by this myself, but apparently not
 annoyed enough to induce the idea to change it ;)
 since CB won't let you specify command line options for the debugger
 atm, i'll add this as a command as well.
 it'll be in the next release.

Cool. Can you make a tiny .bat file wrapper for ddbg that uses the flag? Like -----ddbg_gdb.bat--- ddbg -gdb %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9 -------------------- --bb
Apr 05 2007