Re: Is anyone using gud?
From: SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org>
Date: 27 Aug 1998 13:24:04 -0700
Rick Campbell <campbell(a)cyberpass.net> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org:
I use it sometimes. It's pretty bad, but sometimes it's the
only
choice when dealing with SparcWorks C++.
O.K. "Bad but usable" doesn't sound like a burning reason to trash it.
Cool.
gdb-mode isn't practical because of name mangling issues, and
painful as it is, I prefer running dbx through gud than any other
interface I've tried. If there's a better way to run dbx in emacs
-- especially if it looks a lot like gdb-mode, *please* let me
know.
There's the Sparcworks stuff.
Yes and no. There's a version skew issue. Believe it or not, I'm
*still* stuck keeping code running on SunOS 4.1.3 which means SC3.0.1
which means old-style sparcworks/eos stuff which I believe has been
dropped from XEmacs in favor of the new sparcworks/eos (workcenter?)
stuff which only works with SC4.* which only works with Solaris 2.*.
Maybe I'm just being confused about this, but I was pretty sure that
we discussed this when XEmacs support changed (19.16? 20.4?). I
suddenly found the XEmacs Sparcworks configuration not playing nice
with my environment and the party line was Upgrade. So . . . when I'm
stuck debugging with SunOS 4.1.3/SC3.0.1, I'm stuck with Bad but
usable gud/dbx. Sigh . . . .
Of course it would be wonderful to have tooltalk-free dbx support that
was as nice as gdb-mode. However, I don't think it's available and
I'm not holding my breath or volunteering, so I'm happy enough to make
do with gud until I can ditch the old Sun environment.
Rick
Attachments:
- attachment.sig (application/pgp-signature — 346 bytes)