 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Thierry CHARLES <thierry@_no_spam_les-charles.net> wrote:
>> If you compile your code using -g (or -dgdb if you plan to use gdb and
>> get some more specific results) you will have row numbers :
>
> I guess I'll need to figure out which of these are set by the ./configu
re
> options available for POV-Ray, and how the Intel compiler deals with th
em...
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
>
>
try a ./configure --enable-debug=full, it should be OK
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka escreveu:
> Hum... so now I know in which *function* it crashes - but what do I have to do
> in order to get the *line number*??
http://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb_9.html#SEC57
In particular:
"When your program stops, GDB spontaneously prints the line where it
stopped. Likewise, when you select a stack frame (see section Selecting
a Frame), GDB prints the line where execution in that frame has stopped.
You can print other portions of source files by explicit command."
Some commands:
next
step
list linenumber
list functionname
etc
> I knew I wouldn't like debugging under Linux :S
Not really that bad if you RTFM. ;)
I might too that both vim and emacs support fluid integrated interfaces
to the whole dev stack: make, gcc and gdb. Of course, it would need
you to learn a bit of these very different tools, something not
happening when you seem reluctant to try even KDevelop and it's VS-like
workflow...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis escreveu:
errata:
> I might add too
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> > I knew I wouldn't like debugging under Linux :S
>
> Not really that bad if you RTFM. ;)
You know how F those M's are to R if all you want to do is just to figure out
where a program crashed on a Linux system, when otherwise you basically do all
development under windows? ;)
I mean, it's not like they have any "quick start" sections (or I'm R'ing T wrong
FM's...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:12:49 -0500, clipka wrote:
> )
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.29.75.35
> X-Trace: news.povray.org 1233940500 203.29.75.35 (6 Feb 2009 12:15:00
> -0500) Lines: 14
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> X-Copyright: This copyrighted article comes from a private news server
> and may NOT be distributed on USENET or other news servers.
> X-POV-Header: --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Path:
> news.povray.org!192.100.130.7
> Xref: news.povray.org povray.unix:4725
>
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> > I knew I wouldn't like debugging under Linux :S
>>
>> Not really that bad if you RTFM. ;)
>
> You know how F those M's are to R if all you want to do is just to
> figure out where a program crashed on a Linux system, when otherwise you
> basically do all development under windows? ;)
>
> I mean, it's not like they have any "quick start" sections (or I'm R'ing
> T wrong FM's...)
I think Nem's point is that you had to learn debugging techniques on
Windows at some point and you probably read some documentation on how to
do it there.
But if you compile with symbolic information and run under gdb, it is
generally pretty easy. Not as easy as using single-step debugging in the
old Borland compilers (which I used to use all the time), but it's not
very different, either. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> I knew I wouldn't like debugging under Linux :S
>> Not really that bad if you RTFM. ;)
>
> You know how F those M's are to R if all you want to do is just to figure out
> where a program crashed on a Linux system, when otherwise you basically do all
> development under windows? ;)
What that means is that you are comfortable on Windows because you
previously took your time to learn Windows tools and is now blaming
Linux because you chose not to take your time to learn Linux tools.
> I mean, it's not like they have any "quick start" sections (or I'm R'ing T wrong
> FM's...)
Little tip, in both vi and man pages, the standard way to search for
something is to simply type:
/something
and type n(ext) for the next matches or shift+n for previous. Grep and
Google are also fine friends. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:12:49 -0500, clipka wrote:
>
>> )
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.29.75.35
>> X-Trace: news.povray.org 1233940500 203.29.75.35 (6 Feb 2009 12:15:00
>> -0500) Lines: 14
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>> X-Copyright: This copyrighted article comes from a private news server
>> and may NOT be distributed on USENET or other news servers.
>> X-POV-Header: --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Path:
>> news.povray.org!192.100.130.7
>> Xref: news.povray.org povray.unix:4725
>>
>> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> I knew I wouldn't like debugging under Linux :S
>>> Not really that bad if you RTFM. ;)
>> You know how F those M's are to R if all you want to do is just to
>> figure out where a program crashed on a Linux system, when otherwise you
>> basically do all development under windows? ;)
>>
>> I mean, it's not like they have any "quick start" sections (or I'm R'ing
>> T wrong FM's...)
>
> I think Nem's point is that you had to learn debugging techniques on
> Windows at some point and you probably read some documentation on how to
> do it there.
Yes!
On a side note, you know there's something wrong in your nemesis career
when people begin calling you Nem, even your atheist nemesis. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:21:11 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>> I think Nem's point is that you had to learn debugging techniques on
>> Windows at some point and you probably read some documentation on how
>> to do it there.
>
> Yes!
>
> On a side note, you know there's something wrong in your nemesis career
> when people begin calling you Nem, even your atheist nemesis. ;)
LOL, now wait a minute, I'm not atheist, did Darren call you "Nem" as
well? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:21:11 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>
>>> I think Nem's point is that you had to learn debugging techniques on
>>> Windows at some point and you probably read some documentation on how
>>> to do it there.
>> Yes!
>>
>> On a side note, you know there's something wrong in your nemesis career
>> when people begin calling you Nem, even your atheist nemesis. ;)
>
> LOL, now wait a minute, I'm not atheist, did Darren call you "Nem" as
> well? ;-)
LOL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > I mean, it's not like they have any "quick start" sections (or I'm R'ing
> > T wrong FM's...)
>
> I think Nem's point is that you had to learn debugging techniques on
> Windows at some point and you probably read some documentation on how to
> do it there.
.... and that's where a quick-start doc would come in handy: E.g. how to set
those freakin' compiler flags to get the most out of the debugger.
.... or better yet, how to set those freakin' debugging-related flags of the POV
../configure script, so that it automatically sets all compiler flags I need
(though I fear I won't find such information in the compiler docs) ;)
BTW, I think one of the biggest advancements in debugging is the ability to
single-step through code lines - so unless Borland did something different
there than any modern IDE I know of, then if Linux debuggers don't have it I'll
definitely miss it (if I ever let myself talk into Linux debugging in the first
place, that is).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
