This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Gdb
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:40 +1000
From: Russell Shaw <rjshaw@netspace.net.au>
CC: gdb@sourceware.org
That is not necessarily a sign of bad design. For example, when Emacs
does garbage collection, the stack depth sometimes exceeds 10,000
levels when recursive data structures are marked. That is normal and
by design.
The slowness and size of emacs put me off it. I use (g)vim because
editing using ex regex commands is a more direct way at doing things imho.
What does this have to do with the issue at hand?
Mainly that i detest deep indirect stacks to reach some final target code
because it makes things slow and hard to maintain. The speed and compactness
of vi is what i'd like in gdb, without sacrificing completeness and usability.
I don't like waiting for a text editor to start (emacs), and wouldn't want to
wait for a bloated debugger to start (gdb is currently ok imo).
> I used Emacs as an
example of a very deep stack being a normal situation in a working
program whose design is generally considered well-thought.
Perhaps you lack good tools for learning programs, or don't use them
to their full power.
I just use ctags to navigate in gvim.
I recommend to add at least ID-Utils to your toolchest. I don't know
if someone wrote a gvim plug-in for it (the Emacs interface is
included in the package), but even if you invoke it from the shell,
it's an invaluable tool for finding your way around an unfamiliar
program.
I'll read-up on id-utils.
Also, some parts of GDB internals are documented in gdbint.texinfo.
Sadly, many important aspects are not covered at all there, but if you
are lucky to be working on something that is described, reading that
manual can help.