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: <3732F921.93EDF6A3@st.com> Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 16:30:57 +0200 From: Laurent CHARLES Organization: STMicroelectronics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: Debuggers References: <37328C27 DOT 22FAF2F9 AT 1c DOT ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit egorovv AT 1c DOT ru wrote: > Laurent Charles wrote: > > - 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. > I run native NTEmacs with cygwin32-mount.el and it is very good for > debugging. > I just wonder how you got Emacs compiled with cygwin tools. It was quite > easy to me with XEmacs but I filed to build Emacs using cygwin. Ooops! I lied! The emacs we use is actually NTemacs without cygwin support!!! I've been confused by the lisp package you mention!!! Sorry for those who though I might have a cygwin port of emacs... > > As a conclusion, from this experience I would recommend old-good emacs > > today. So what I said is a bit wrong... Though in final emacs is a good choice. > - xemacs > I compiled xemacs with the cygwin tools. > > 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... > Since then, I compiled xemacs _with cygwin_, but without X11 & xpm. It works very well. It's just not as nice. --Laurent -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com