 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] 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...)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> 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.
No. What it means is that I am comfortable on Windows because I previously took
my time to learn Windows tools (as you correctly observe) and choose not to
take my time to learn Linux tools (as you correctly observe as well).
No blaming Linux. Just expressing my disgruntlement about the differences
between the two worlds, which make it difficult for me to "port" much of my
experience with one to the other (especially given the effort constraints I
have set myself).
BTW, why does everybody seem to take a "I hate Linux" for "Linux is crap"? I
don't think it is. I just hate it, that's all. And actually I just hate it when
I don't know how to make it do what I want it to do... and yes, I *am*
helplessly impatient with it in such situations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:13:22 -0500, clipka wrote:
> 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.
Something like:
http://irl.eecs.umich.edu/jamin/pointers/gdbQS.html
Perhaps? ;-)
> .... 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) ;)
Most ./configure scripts accept a --help switch to tell you what the
options are. :-)
> 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).
You can single step into functions or over functions in gdb - IIRC, it's
something like "t" and "s".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Something like:
>
> http://irl.eecs.umich.edu/jamin/pointers/gdbQS.html
>
> Perhaps? ;-)
Yeah, something like that... with working links, preferably :)
> > .... 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) ;)
>
> Most ./configure scripts accept a --help switch to tell you what the
> options are. :-)
Sure. I prefer the "INSTALL" documentation of POV though (I'm not so fond of any
online help that I have to invoke again and again because it keeps scrolling out
of view in my terminal window). Still it doesn't say what *exactly* those
compiler flags do; for example, can *you* tell me what *exactly* the
"--enable-debug" flag does? I give you a hint: It does *not* seem to enable
line number information in the executable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:25:50 -0500, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Something like:
>>
>> http://irl.eecs.umich.edu/jamin/pointers/gdbQS.html
>>
>> Perhaps? ;-)
>
> Yeah, something like that... with working links, preferably :)
Well, that was one of the hits on Google that I found. ;-)
>> > .... 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) ;)
>>
>> Most ./configure scripts accept a --help switch to tell you what the
>> options are. :-)
>
> Sure. I prefer the "INSTALL" documentation of POV though (I'm not so
> fond of any online help that I have to invoke again and again because it
> keeps scrolling out of view in my terminal window). Still it doesn't say
> what *exactly* those compiler flags do; for example, can *you* tell me
> what *exactly* the "--enable-debug" flag does? I give you a hint: It
> does *not* seem to enable line number information in the executable.
Pipe the output through less. :-)
Then there's "man gcc" if you want to know what the compiler flags do.
I don't have the povray source on my system at the moment, so no, I
probably couldn't tell you what --enable-debug does in povray's configure
script.
You could always run the configure script with and without the switch and
diff the makefiles....That's how I'd do it rather than trying to sort
through bash scripting (since that's not my strong suit).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
