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

[Stephen Leake <Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

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 use gdb under Emacs on Win32, and I love it. I've also used the
Borland IDE debugger on Win32, the ObjectAda IDE debugger on Win32,
and the DEC VMS debugger. Of these, only the DEC debugger comes close
to gdb.

Any new interface feels klutzy at first, until you learn how to do
basic things. When you get past that, you begin to see the true power
of the tool.

For example, using the Borland debugger, you can't examine local
variables in functions on the current call stack; you can only examine
the variables in the current function. gdb can examine all variables
on the call stack.

I have not played with the various GUI interfaces to gdb, because
Emacs already does everything I might need from a GUI.

>   Of course the fact I've been able to live without that kind
> of debugger for so long reinforces the observation that a "debugger"
> of that kind is less vital with Ada than with other languages.

I tend to jump right into gdb to find a bug, because it is so easy and
so powerful. Then I go back and fix my unit test to show the bug,
then I fix the bug. I guess we just have different styles!

-- Stephe