From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Guile and GDB Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:22:42 +0200 Message-ID: <87vdmhqn25.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8663ek2ayd.fsf@gnu.org> <87tz23udh3.fsf@arudy.ossau.uklinux.net> <86bpobzb3x.fsf@gnu.org> <87vdmik7e5.fsf@arudy.ossau.uklinux.net> <87y6resl3p.fsf@gnu.org> <87vdmi3tqk.fsf@arudy.ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1246145008 8058 80.91.229.12 (27 Jun 2009 23:23:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:23:28 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 28 01:23:21 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MKhEk-0002dz-VF for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:23:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49474 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MKhEk-0003ha-6c for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:23:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MKhEd-0003hL-Ok for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:23:03 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MKhEY-0003h9-Br for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:23:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45705 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MKhEY-0003h6-6W for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:22:58 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:53304 helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MKhEX-0002o6-KU for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:22:58 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MKhEV-0003oa-6V for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:22:55 +0000 Original-Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:22:55 +0000 Original-Received: from ludo by reverse-83.fdn.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:22:55 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 30 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: reverse-83.fdn.fr X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 10 Messidor an 217 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:JQqEy504Udc/nn2uJwNNGcU+A1c= X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:8788 Archived-At: Hello! Neil Jerram writes: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Because one can achieve the same result with simple GDB macros such as >> those attached below (actually Andy put similar macros in the >> repository). > > Thanks for explaining, I understand now. Although I still think that > it's a useful extra benefit for the _GDB_ backtrace to show SCM data > nicely, as you showed in your examples at > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2007-07/msg00231.html. Well, admittedly, it looks nice. :-) >> One expects much more from a debugger, most notably being >> able to analyze data without running code in the inferior process. > > It's all running code of one kind or another; is there really a clear > distinction here? Yes: running code in the process being debugged is intrusive, and it interferes with the behavior one is trying to observe. It's also impossible in many cases, e.g., when the inferior process was stopped due to SIGSEGV, or when inspecting from a core file. Thanks, Ludo'.