On Dienstag, 31. Januar 2017 20:55:45 CET Justin Berger wrote: > > I liked the snapshots that were in Stephen Kelly's daemon-mode patch much > > better than an interactive debugger. > > I'm not sure these tools have that much use-case overlap. As far as I can > tell, snapshots has roughly the same overhead / functionality as reversible > interactive debuggers; which is non trivial. Which tool is best for a given > problem seems situational; and having both seems useful. > > I looked through the code for cmServer, since it maintains an instance of > cmake in process, it could register as a debug listener and get events / > set breakpoints and all in response to different requests coming in. The > issue here though is that it seems like (and maybe this is wrong?) the > actual call out to configure blocks on the libuv loop thread so it can't > get or process any requests while configure is running; so maybe keeping > them as seperate services running on separate loops is better. > > The only way I could see it making sense to use a completely different > protocol would be if there were a semi-standard debugger protocol used in > different IDE's for debugging interpreted code, and then I think it makes > sense to pursue those. However, I did some research into that and didn't > find anything especially relevant -- IDE maintainers would obviously have a > better sense of that though. Also, even if there is such a thing, there is > no reason not to support multiple debug protocols; it is just a matter of > prioritization.
GDB's MI is a standard protocol used by both clang and LLDB but I think it will be overkill for something like CMake. From my POV, CMake is very different from a normal application that you may debug. I mean do you really expect people to go line-by-line through a cmake script to see how it gets evaluated? I don't. Rather, I want to see the effect a call has on the CMake state, i.e. the approach that Stephen took is far better in my eyes. > It seems like QtCreator is the only IDE which currently has current support > for server-mode; are there any Qt people active on the mailing list who > could weigh in on what approach makes the most sense from an integrators > perspective? KDevelop is working on adding that - we have a patch up for review which should be added any time now: https://phabricator.kde.org/D4095 Cheers -- Milian Wolff m...@milianw.de http://milianw.de
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information on each offering, please visit: CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
