Re: Defending GCC considered futile

[Daniel Colascione]

On 02/10/2015 07:57 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:30:03 -0800
>> From: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>
>> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, 
>>  address@hidden
>>
>>>> No, actually. Because the rest of the compiler wasn't intentionally
>>>> made non-modular, it was possible for the LLDB team to re-use the
>>>> code from the rest of the toolchain. LLDB doesn't need things like its
>>>> own expression parsing and interpretation code because it can call
>>>> into Clang/LLVM at will.
>>>
>>> Parsing source-code expression is a very small part of what GDB does.
>>> So this is a red herring.
>>
>> It's also one of the most frustrating parts of GDB.
> 
> I guess we have very different GDB experiences and/or needs, if this
> is a significant issue for you.  I almost never need to type complex
> source-level expressions into a debugger.  The reason is simple:
> almost every interesting value is already assigned to some variable,
> so most expressions I type are simple references to variables.

<optimized out>

> If you want to explore a complex data structure, you should use Python
> or Guile scripting anyway.

That scripting is still incomplete.   See
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-10/msg00102.html, where I try
to fix it to some extent. At least IME, sooner or later, when scripting
GDB, you fall down to issuing textual commands and parsing their textual
output.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature