digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 3389] New: gdb: using -gc is mandatory but not well documented
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (21/21) Oct 12 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (15/15) Apr 01 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (6/6) Apr 28 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Jan 31 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (23/29) Feb 01 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (8/8) Feb 01 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Feb 01 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (20/20) Feb 01 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (14/29) Feb 02 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389 Summary: gdb: using -gc is mandatory but not well documented Product: D Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: www.digitalmars.com AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com ReportedBy: llucax gmail.com PDT --- -g is known to be broken when using GDB (I don't know if this is how it's supposed to be or if it's a bug). -gc usually works (there are a few bugs still), but it's not very well documented that when using GDB you should use -gc (which is supposed to mean, "pretend to be C", so it's not very easy to figure out that that flag should be used instead of -g). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 12 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389 Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |robert octarineparrot.com 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: -------
Apr 01 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389 PDT --- Seems reasonable. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Apr 28 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389 dawg dawgfoto.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |dawg dawgfoto.de Resolution| |FIXED -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 31 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389 Leandro Lucarella <leandro.lucarella sociomantic.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | 2012-02-01 02:25:52 PST --- Copying comment in bug 4149 and reopening because I don't think this is really closed. In that bug some standard DWARF issues were moved to -g, and now I think -g works with debuggers not supporting D extensions. *BUT*, in bug 4149 Walter agreed about this comment by Brad Roberts:Depends on if gc implies c, c++, or 'as much as is supported in the built-in debug format without extension'. I'd argue for the last definition. Given that dwarf supports it without extension, I'd argue that it should use it. I'd argue that -g should be built-in + d extensions.AFAIK this pull request works for -g instead of -gc, even when it uses standard DWARF features, which goes against that comment. Also there is the point made by Robert Clipsham in comment 1, which for me makes a lot of sense. At least this will be more familiar with people used to GCC command line arguments (which is probably 100% of the *nix world), where -g is the default for debug and you have, for example -ggdb for GDB extensions. AFAIK there is no clear direction about this and it would be nice to have one, so the debugging stuff is as consistent as possible. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 01 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389 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: -------
Feb 01 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389 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: -------
Feb 01 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389 Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED CC| |braddr puremagic.com Resolution| |WONTFIX --- 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: -------
Feb 01 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3389 2012-02-02 02:51:50 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.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.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: -------
Feb 02 2012