This is the mail archive of the insight@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Insight project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

5.3 problems on RH7.2


Hi - I've been using 5.3 for a couple of months, and it's generally working very well, but I have noticed a few problems. It would be nice to get some feedback on this - are these known problems, or am I doing something wrong?

This is on RH7.2, with gcc 3.3. I had the same issues with gcc 2.95. These are large-ish static executables (10-15MB), linked against pthreads and gtk 1.2, although the crashing code is actually single-threaded and doesn't use gtk. I've done a sanity check against ddd using the version of gdb in insight's bin directory, and it doesn't have these problems (although it does have lots of its own problems, of course).

1) I occasionally get an "Error: Can't read '_twin': no such variable" message. Insight crashes at this point, and has to be killed. I got a lot of these when debugging multi-threaded code (basically, I have to use ddd for multi-threaded), but I still get it even when there's only one thread.

2) I quite frequently get an "Error: bad text index '4'" message when opening a new source file. I can normally ignore this, although it does seem that Insight occasionally crashes some time afterwards.

3) Stack tracing frequently doesn't work, particularly if you're debugging a core dump. The trace window doesn't show all the stack levels, and clicking on a given level takes you to the wrong level.

4) ddd also has this problem, so it's presumably gdb-related. Just how much can you change an executable, and expect the result to still be debuggable? 'run' recognises that the executable has changed, and reloads the symbols, but on maybe one occasion in 10 gdb will crash soon afterwards.

Apart from that, it's great... honest :). Certainly a lot better than ddd.

Thanks

Evan
________________________________________________________
E.M. Lavelle
Riverside Machines Ltd.  mailto:anti.spam1@dsl.pipex.com
The 'From' and 'mailto' fields contained a valid address
at the time at which this mail was posted.
________________________________________________________


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]