Re: GDB Woes Continued...

[wanker@exploited.barmy.army]

In article <rracine-0202980727040001@rjr1287.draper.com>,
Roger Racine <rracine@draper.com> wrote:

[About loading an executable]

>I have not been able to get it to load an executable.  I get a "Something
>wrong with xxxxx" message, where "xxxxx" is the file name.
>

Are you by any chance loading from the menu?  Whenever I try
any kind of load from the menu I get some kind of error messages.
Try some of the commands from the debugger command-line.  A "help"
should give you a list of things to try.

Not that it's going to do you any good.  You won't see the
error message, but you'll still see C code, and I haven't
had much luck in actually stepping through anything.



>> > 4) Does GDB expect you to debug in C, even though you just
>> >    wrote your code in Ada?
>> 
>> No.
>
>Does it have anything to do with how one compiles the program in
>question?  I am using GIDE, with the switch set that creates debugger
>information.  And I have still not been able to get the debugger to work.

I used the -g option which as far as I know, should create 
debugging information.  I got this straight out of seeing what
Adagide fed to the compiler.  I still can't get anything other
than C code, and the debugger doesn't even seem to like
stepping through that!  


>> Can anyone outside ACT report success with gdb under Win95 ?
>> 
>Not I.

And of course not I.


>
>The only reason I respond like this is that I, too, am a bit frustrated by
>the level of documentation (especially when the Help system does not
>work!).  

Definitely.  What really irks me is the fact that the bugs
and flakiness would NEVER have made it through if someone had
bothered to test the thing.  There is no way that you get
a completely, 100% broken help system and 50% (or higher)
crash rate coming through the test.

The way I see it, somebody pulled out the Unix source, 
threw it at some automatic conversion protocols and
figured "that's good enough for those windows bastards, if
they don't like it, let them get Linux!".

Well I'm one of those "windows bastards", and I have no
intention of installing Linux.  If the tools for windows
don't work, then I will find other tools.  

Ada is too good a language to give a bad rep to because
the tools stink.  How many people do you think are being
turned off because of crap like gdb?  Sorry, but gdb IS crap.
At least the Windows version is.

Successful Advocacy starts with having good tools to show
people how nice Ada programming is.  Please remember that.

You've got a superb IDE (Grasp), which can connect to a
very good compiler (GNAT), now you need a usable debugger.


>
>I have seen a message from Robert Dewar where he suggests that the
>debugger is unnecessary, and I understand his position.  I do not think
>the point is relevant, though, since a -lot- of people will be turned off
>a language if the tools for that language do not meet their expectations,
>no matter if the expectation is reasonable.  It would be better to not
>have a tool than to have a bad one (or an undocumented one, where the tool
>looks bad even if it can be made to work).

I haven't seen this message, and I am interested in knowing why
would a debugger be unnecessary?  I consider the debugger to
be THE most important tool next to the compiler itself.



>By the way, do not interpret this (or the original poster's message) as a
>swipe at ACT, or Robert Dewar.  I applaud their effort to bring an
>affordable, excellent product to the masses.  And I have found the
>-compiler- to be reasonably well documented (it is too UNIX-oriented for
>Windows users, but that is a different subject), and the compilation
>system works quite well.

I'm not insulting ACT either -- I mean this stuff IS free.  Now
if I were expected to pay for gdb, that would be an entirely
different matter (I would be raising all hell).  And as you said,
the compiler is quite good.

I consider the problem with gdb to be representative of problems
with people porting Unix programs to Windows (NT, 95) in general.
I mean look at Cygwin32 -- it's a package designed to make
windows act like Unix so that people don't have to take the time
to actually fix their programs so they work on Windows.  It's
like a layer of emulation on top of an O/S.  Cygwin32
is the ultimate "round peg in a square hole" adapter.  It's
like these tools were designed by Linux advocates so they can
say "it won't be THIS hard if you just give up and use Linux".

I think the ultimate example of this ridiculousness came when
I went out to download a language.  The language itself (the
binary for Windows) was about a meg or two in size, but in order
to run I had to download a 9 meg package to make Windows look
like Unix!  I think that says it all.

Needless to say, I didn't even bother downloading the language.

The only reason I'm putting up with this debacle so far is
because I've used Ada before and I know it's a good language.
If I didn't know this, I would have given up the first time
I had a problem.

To all the folks thinking about porting Unix apps to Windows:
Please REALLY PORT IT.  Don't expect us to break our backs to
get YOUR programs to work with Windows.  That's your job,
and remember that things should work right out of the package.
This is not Unix, where you are stuck compiling and configuring
things yourself.  Do you think Windows users, who are pampered
with things like "install wizards" and point and click configuration
are going to try to fix makefiles and set up environments manually,
especially in the absence of decent documentation?  



>
>Please consider this as "constructive criticism" to the Ada community in
>general.  If we want to get Ada accepted by the masses, we need to A)
>provide tools the masses want (as opposed to what they need), and B)
>provide usable tools (as opposed to useful tools).  That is a bit cynical,
>but the point is that any tools that do not work "Off the Shelf" are not
>going to be used.


Precisely.  At this point I'm on the fence as to whether or not
Ada is even worth my time.  I used Ada a few years back, and
deleted it from my system because there wasn't a useful debugger
available.  Without being able to debug my code, I considered
the entire development environment to be nothing more than a toy.
I sadly went back to coding in C/C++ and with even higher level
languages (ones that had a subsystem that served as a debugger).

Now I'm back, and it sadly looks like Ada95 will be deleted again.
Not only doesn't gdb work, but the TK package doesn't either -- it
won't even build (the fact that I'm even expected to build the
package under Win95 is demonstrative of what I've been complaining
about -- more unnecessary UNIXisms). The really sad thing is I'm not sure
if I want to waste my time giving Ada another chance.  Life is too
short to be trying to fix problems which should not be there.

It's like all the time and grief you'll save by programming in
Ada is more than offset by the agony you'll suffer trying to
get the thing to work!


>
>Roger Racine


I'm sure you can tell that I'm frustrated.  I've just about had it.

Thanks.