|
From: Tom H. <to...@co...> - 2009-08-13 17:23:53
|
On 13/08/09 18:22, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Philippe > Waroquiers<phi...@sk...> wrote: > >> When an error was encountered, this gdbserver was called; and was reporting >> to gdb that a "break" was encountered. It was then possible to use gdb to >> examine memory (print variables and similar). >> A continue command in gdb was just causing gdbserver to return to valgrind >> error mgr, which was then continuing to run as usual. > > AFAICT, the above in itself doesn't provide many benefits over the current > scheme, except that GDB would not have to read symbolic debug info every > time a new error is encountered (reading debug info can take minutes on > large executables, so this benefit alone is not insignificant). The main benefit as I saw it was not adding extra features but being able to close all the bugs complaining that the current extremely fragile system doesn't work. Tom -- Tom Hughes (to...@co...) http://www.compton.nu/ |