Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:50:16 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Brett Porter <bporter AT rabble DOT uow DOT edu DOT au>
cc: DJGPP <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: wanted: recommendation for a good debugger
In-Reply-To: <199710140007.KAA15635@rabble.uow.edu.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.971014104947.14214J-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Brett Porter wrote:

> Well there is GDB, but it is a text-based command line driven debugger.
> Apparently it can do more than RHGDB (the debugger built in to RHIDE),

RHIDE's debugger is just GDB, but compiled into a library.  So RHIDE
can do everything GDB can.

RHIDE is also based on newer beta versions of GDB code, so it has some
bugfixes that the latest GDB in DJGPP archives doesn't have yet.

> There is also FSDB but it is assembly only, and fairly limited.

Exactly how is FSDB ``limited'', in your opinion?  I find it rather
powerful.  The only limitation I know of is that it is hard to inspect
complex data structures.  And since it shows the C/C++ source together
with the disassembled machine instructions, it is hardly ``assembly
only''.

> I haven't used the MSDOS version of EMacs, but I'm sure it would have some
> sort of debugging capability.

Unfortunately, Emacs integrated debugger support doesn't work on
MSDOS.  It actually runs GDB as an asynchronous subprocess, and those
aren't supported in the DJGPP version (yet).