|
From: Dennis L. <pla...@in...> - 2005-08-02 17:25:39
|
At 18:03 02.08.2005, Cerion Armour-Brown wrote: >On Monday 01 August 2005 18:33, Dennis Lubert wrote: > >Been having a look at this. I see it's rather more useful than I realised - >indeed, some programs won't work at all without a pty (e.g. ssh), even if we >supported stdin (not quite there)... > >We're wondering whether to go the route of providing a terminal within the >GUI, or to simply use the same terminal that Valkyrie was started in. > >This becomes a broader question: >Should Valkyrie just be a nice 'display tool' of Valgrind's output, or should >it become a full-blown debugging interface? Or somewhere in between? > >Myself, I still use emacs over kdevelop... >But what would you (and others out there?) actually prefer? > >Cheers, >Cerion Ok, lets try it from this point: I currently use vim as my editor, make & gcc to compile, and manually run valgrind 2 or 3 (having both installed and working) from time to time on the programs. Some are interactive ncurses programs, so I dump the stuff into files. Then I compare the -v summary part, look what errors have disappeared, what have been added and go on. If valkyrie should really be able to help me then I should be able to compare, run it with the executable as command line, so for me it would be best if I/O would then happen in the terminal where it was started. Valkyrie shouldn't become a full blown debugging interface, but it would be nice if I can instruct it to properly start ddd to debug stuff in case of errors, or to intelligently compare errors (Like, on different runs there may be different addresses, or slightly different line numbers, but all come from the same source, edited in between). At least for me, this would be the way valkyrie could be of most help for me. greets Dennis Carpe quod tibi datum est |