Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 01:32:31 +0000 From: Gary Jennejohn <garyj@munich.netsurf.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kgdb.. Message-ID: <199601170132.BAA22545@peedub.gj.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Jan 1996 14:13:53 PST." <199601162213.OAA00186@corbin.Root.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
oops, forgot to cc this to hackers David Greenman writes: >>As garyj@frt.dec.com wrote: >>> >>> I've wondered myself why it's still in the tree. Seems to me that >>> `gdb -k' works pretty well. Or does someone know of a reason NOT >>> to eliminate kgdb ? >> >>I'm using gdb -k all days. I've been one of those guys who have been >>in favour of the old kgdb... >> >>Well, i've just checked, Gary: kgdb is no longer in the regular tree: > that's nice, but I guess gdb is lacking some functionality which is important to some people. > Yes, I'm a kgdb person, too. The standard gdb doesn't have the powerful >scripting/macro mechanism that kgdb had. For one thing, it lacks the looping >constructs which I found _very_ important. > the question is whether it's worth adding this stuff to gdb, or just let those who want to, use kgdb (which is also much smaller than gdb). I have no bone to pick on this one. If enough people feel that the missing functionality is important, then maybe we should try to add it in. One Of These Days (Pat. Pend.) I (or someone) will get around to porting gdb-4.15 (or whatever the current version happens to be). --- Gary Jennejohn Home - Gary.Jennejohn@munich.netsurf.de Work - gjennejohn@frt.dec.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601170132.BAA22545>