From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a24:5ed3:: with SMTP id h202mr2508018itb.17.1554477473195;
        Fri, 05 Apr 2019 08:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:4e0c:: with SMTP id c12mr2531555oib.0.1554477472983;
 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 08:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!78no107357itl.0!news-out.google.com!l81ni175itl.0!nntp.google.com!78no107355itl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 08:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1352f43a-e549-4ddd-8e67-2e1c2ca25395@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=96.255.209.31;
 posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 96.255.209.31
References: <q80met$bfn$2@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <q81ncg$6ol$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <e6897479-3485-4257-978d-8cb624c44d6f@googlegroups.com>
 <q82he8$1jj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <ly5zrv5aje.fsf@pushface.org> <q82pn8$18h3$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <1e27ce78-217d-4adc-8380-30f6d4fc5fdc@googlegroups.com>
 <878swq2q1m.fsf@nightsong.com>
 <gglu1uFlu3fU1@mid.individual.net>
 <1352f43a-e549-4ddd-8e67-2e1c2ca25395@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2252d440-e11e-4afb-8a69-207c531c0846@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Intervention needed?
From: Optikos <optikos@verizon.net>
Injection-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 15:17:53 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56080
Date: 2019-04-05T08:17:52-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 1:45:20 AM UTC-4, Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> > As gdb can be scripted, the tests that Maciej describes can probably be=
=20
> > automated,
>=20
> Yes.
>=20
> > albeit with considerable effort,
>=20
> Not really. I would say there is no need for this effort to be higher tha=
n with any other form of test automation. Note that as with anything else i=
n software, recurring problems can be mitigated by additional code. That is=
, if testing this way is difficult, then the difficulty is similar for the =
whole class of similar tests and as such that difficulty can be refactored =
away to additional utility (library/framework/etc.) with simpler (higher-le=
vel) interface.
>=20
> > especially if the scripts=20
> > should be robust to evolution of the SW under test (changing the line=
=20
> > numbers of the required breakpoints, etc.)
>=20
> This is a wider problem of traceability. You have to solve this problem a=
nyway for the coverage analysis, for example. And the solution, whatever yo=
u happen to use (like tool-readable labels in source comments), will help w=
ith debugging, too.
>=20
> In any case, yes, some projects need the debugger to test individual memo=
ry locations. The lack of proper tools is a technology risk.
>=20
> > However, I don't think that gdb or other current debuggers are=20
> > ideal tools for automated checking of internal states.
>=20
> They are not. But a non-ideal working debugger is still better than a not=
 working one.

Which features do you consider as missing in GDB regarding GNAT Ada that ma=
ke GDB non-ideal?