|
From: Cerion Armour-B. <ce...@op...> - 2005-08-02 16:03:24
|
On Monday 01 August 2005 18:33, Dennis Lubert wrote: > > > - ncurses support does not work completely > > > >The stdout/stderr output panes give plain text only. They're envisaged use > > is as debugging aids, not as interactive shells. Perhaps one day, if > > there's enough people wanting this... > > Maybe lots of people just dont use the program because they see they cannot > use it ;) > As a workaround, maybe it can be set so the output of the program can be > redirected to the console the program is started in, so ncurses and ansi > color programs would work as expected. 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 |
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@cs...> - 2005-08-02 16:32:35
|
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Cerion Armour-Brown wrote: > 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. I think the latter. I expect that if you try to provide a built-in terminal it will take a lot of development effort, you'll never get it to work exactly the way the normal terminals work, and both you and users will get frustrated... N |
|
From: Robert W. <rj...@du...> - 2005-08-02 16:36:31
|
> > 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. >=20 > I think the latter. I expect that if you try to provide a built-in=20 > terminal it will take a lot of development effort, you'll never get it to= =20 > work exactly the way the normal terminals work, and both you and users=20 > will get frustrated... Really? Gnome comes with a terminal widget. I'm guessing Qt (or KDE, probably) comes with one, too. --=20 Robert Walsh Amalgamated Durables, Inc. - "We don't make the things you buy." Email: rj...@du... |
|
From: Cerion Armour-B. <ce...@op...> - 2005-08-02 19:15:36
|
On Tuesday 02 August 2005 18:32, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Cerion Armour-Brown wrote: > > 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. > > I think the latter. I expect that if you try to provide a built-in > terminal it will take a lot of development effort, you'll never get it to > work exactly the way the normal terminals work, and both you and users > will get frustrated... > Assuming this could be done without too much trouble, and without huge dependencies etc, what say you then? I can imagine it might encourage kdevelop type programmers to valgrindify their code if it was made real easy for them. With kdevelop, you click 'run' and it can start up a konsole and run the program from there... Any kdevelop users out there with comments? Cerion |
|
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 |
|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2005-08-02 18:09:17
|
> > I think the latter. I expect that if you try to provide a built-in > > terminal it will take a lot of development effort, you'll never get it to > > work exactly the way the normal terminals work, and both you and users > > will get frustrated... > > Really? Gnome comes with a terminal widget. I'm guessing Qt (or KDE, > probably) comes with one, too. Yeh, but then you have a dependency on gigabytes of extra Gnome/KDE/ whatever gunk. It's a lot of development and maintenance effort to duplicate functionality which already exists anyway. I'm with Nick on this one. J |
|
From: Oswald B. <os...@kd...> - 2005-08-02 18:18:20
|
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 07:09:09PM +0100, Julian Seward wrote: > It's a lot of development and maintenance effort to > duplicate functionality which already exists anyway. > it should be a simple matter to start a random terminal emulator, find out which tty it created and redirect the client to it. after all, ddd manages to do so ... -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please! -- Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. |
|
From: Robert W. <rj...@du...> - 2005-08-02 18:22:08
|
> Yeh, but then you have a dependency on gigabytes of extra Gnome/KDE/ > whatever gunk. Yeah - I was hoping there was a simple terminal emulator Qt widget, but it doesn't look like such a beast exists. Pulling in KDE or Gnome would not be fun. > It's a lot of development and maintenance effort to > duplicate functionality which already exists anyway. I'm with Nick > on this one. Well, another thought (just flogging a dead horse here) would be to use "xterm -e <stub> -into <windowid>" and have <stub> be a simple pipe program that hands stdin, stdout and stderr back and forth between Valkyrie and the terminal emulator. <windowid> would be the chunk of space in Valkyrie that's set aside for the display. Regards, Robert. |