Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-ID: <373143B1.30ED0A20@st.com> Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 09:24:33 +0200 From: Laurent Charles Organization: STMicroelectronics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr,en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: Debuggers References: <37307B78 DOT 695E1C1D AT mcd DOT alcatel DOT be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, hicklinr AT mcd DOT alcatel DOT be wrote: > Could people recommend some graphical shells for gdb. When I looked for user interface for gdb, I came to the following conclusions: My context is to be able to debug mingw32/cygwin32 applications cross compiled on unix boxes. I use gdb from cygwin b20 which can directly access to source files with unix path and name thanks to the cygwin mounts. - gdb text mode. Works perfectly. Not very practical and friendly... - old gdbtk (b19) Was my favorite as it provides enough buttons and menus for simple debug sessions, and the console for advanced debugging. I could not have it running anymore since I switched to b20 (for me copying cygwin1.dll to cygwinb19.dll does not work) I liked the fact that I may rather easily customize the interface with tcl and tk as well. I regret it. - emacs I run emacs compiled with cygwin tools. It works well and fulfill my needs, as I'm satisfied with typing 'b main', 'r', 'n', etc. on the gdb console to debug. - DDD DDD is very promissing, but today I found it not reliable enough under win32/cygwin. This may be because of X11, because of my implementation of X11 (I currently work with Arlindo's binaries) - xemacs I compiled xemacs with the cygwin tools. I can use buttons and menu to run my debug session, and xemacs/cygwin is confortable with debug information where path are relative to the unix filesystem. I also have a problem with "fhandler_base::fork_fixup" when I want to have shells and bash... DDD and xemacs have the same (or similar?) problem. They consumes all the CPU when I run them, as if one of their components was running a polling loop. (some components within X11 ?) They are usable, but not very confortable, especially if your PC is not too powerful. xemacs seems better however... - xemacs NT (without cygwin support) It is not usable for me as gdb front-end because my source repository is referenced in the debug information with unix path which xemacs can't handle. I don't want to "dir" all the source directories. - Quincy99 Well, I didn't try it much as my goal was to debug code written in another environment. As a conclusion, from this experience I would recommend old-good emacs today. I'm very interresting in knowing if you folks faced the same problems, or came to different conclusions. Thank you. Regards --Laurent -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com