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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d5b211b0c1ffcf3e X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.193.129 with SMTP id ho1mr893413pbc.8.1340312981606; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:09:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: l9ni4484pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Practicalities of Ada for app development Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:09:35 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <79c5c9f7-4b72-4990-8961-b3e2db4db79b@qz1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <92daaca1-46ae-43e1-abae-397b4bf6aa33@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1340312979 14696 69.95.181.76 (21 Jun 2012 21:09:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:09:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Date: 2012-06-21T16:09:35-05:00 List-Id: "Adam Beneschan" wrote in message news:92daaca1-46ae-43e1-abae-397b4bf6aa33@googlegroups.com... ... > Actually, that's a typical case where I find a debugger useful. At the > point where you add > the trace message, I set a breakpoint, but set it up so that it continues > automatically and > doesn't display any message. Then when the crash occurs, I ask the > debugger to display > information on the breakpoint, and find that it occurred N times. I've never encountered any debugger that even claimed to have that information; I've surely never used one that has any sort of count or other information about a breakpoint (other than the address where it is set). They just break, period. The fanciest one I've ever heard of allowed attaching a boolean expression to the breakpoint, allowing it run until the expression is true (our debugger is supposed to have that capability, but it doesn't work). > Then I rerun the program, and set a breakpoint at that same place, telling > the debugger > to stop the program after it's hit that place N-1 times. That way, I can > see what's going > on just before the crash. I do that sort of thing quite frequently. That presumes that you have a debugger that records a pass count (as I said, I've never heard of such a thing, and I surely never thought it would be useful), AND you know where to put a breakpoint. (Half of the breakpoints I sent never get reached; it's really easy to miss and put it into the else part or something like that.) By the time I got the breakpoint set, I probably could have added tracing, recompiled (30 seconds at most), relinked, rerun, and examined the output log a second time. I'd only come out ahead using a debugger if it took more than two iterations to find the bug (probably less than 10% of the cases). I suppose, like everything, YMMV. (And if I was going to use a debugger with any regularity, I'd have to spend 3 man-months fixing ours to be more usable -- which I typically add into the expense of using it compared to just looking at logs.) Randy.