> This is what a debugger does not do for you. The debugger allows you
> to be lazy, step around, "oh yeah check for NULL" and never have to
> _think_ about what you're doing or the changes you're making or even
> if the same bug might be elsewhere.
I don't really believe that. It is as easy to add a silly NULL pointer
check based on a oops as it is after a debugging session (and it is even
likely you chose the simple fix because it is harder and more work to proceed)
Usually with the debugger it is at least easier to collect the data needed
for a real fix. Usually when you fix something based on oops logs you have
to often make a lot of assumptions because some knowledge is simply lost
(like, what data did that structure contain exactly where I only see the
pointer in the register?), and at least for me some of these "working theories"
have turned out wrong sometimes.
> This is why Linus does not allow a debugging facility like this into
> the kernel, so people spend time _thinking_ when they go hunting down
What people do is that they start thinking where they can download i386
debugging stubs ;)
> It takes longer to nail a bug, yes, but the resulting fix is always
> far superior. And the person who discovers the bug leaves with a much
> larger amount of knowledge about how that area of the kernel works.
That's for sure, although a single step can be sometimes very instructional
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:22 EST