cygwin bughunt (FAQ alert?)

Christopher Faylor cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com
Fri Jan 21 16:57:00 GMT 2005


On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 01:15:53PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jan 21 11:18, Hughes, Bill wrote:
>>I don't think I'm putting this very well, but it may make the FAQ
>>easier if the standard advice is to load the snaphot and use that for
>>debugging, it removes a separate layer of potential problems in
>>building the dll.  I suspect the people who would want a stripped
>>snapshot to be more capable of producing it than those would may need
>>to build one with debug info.
>
>IMHO you're looking from the wrong direction.  People capable of
>debugging the Cygwin DLL are usually also capable of building it.  I'm
>wondering how somebody should be able to debug an application at all,
>if this person stumbles over using the compiler tools.

cgf, waves and points.

See, Corinna is being mean here!  It's not just me!

(although I've made similar observations in the past)

Maybe someone will prove me wrong but it seems likely that this is a
basically an entry examination.  If you can't figure out how to build
cygwin, then you probably aren't going to provide much in the way of
useful feedback if you had a debuggable version.  I would also submit
that, IMO, helping people run a debugger and figure things out in the
debugger is an order of magnitude more difficult than providing basic
tech support

The debugger is only marginally more useful when the debugging symbols
are available anyway.  You still need the source code to do anything
really worthwhile.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/



More information about the Cygwin mailing list