Re: gdb question, was Re: Ada vs. C++

["Mike Dimmick" <mike@dimmick.demon.co.uk>]

"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:wcchff97z2w.fsf@world.std.com...
> tmoran@bix.com writes:
>
> >   I recently needed, for the first time, to use gdb.  It seemed
> > non-obvious and extremely klutzy.  Is that just my unfamiliarity,
> > or does that match others' observation?
>
> I don't much like gdb, either.  But in general, I don't like to spend
a
> lot of time in debuggers anyway -- better to try to understand the
> code.
>
> When I do use gdb, I use it under Emacs, which makes it much more
> pleasant (eg automatically shows the part of the program you're in).

My own experience with gdb, under linux, was very nasty -- though it may
have been the version of gdb (4.17.0.11): it insisted on listing the C
files that GNAT generated rather than my source files!  All I wanted to
find out was where I was getting an exception raised.

I ended up recompiling the program (which was minimal anyway) under
Windows and using GDB/TK to find the source line.  This release actually
told me under the backtrace where the error was occurring.

Not a friendly tool.

By contrast, MS Visual C++ has a great debugger -- but you do tend to do
quite a bit more work in it than with GNAT, I'll grant you.

--
Mike Dimmick