Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > >
> > > What would a debugger have done?
> > Let the end user give me essential answers on what was happening at the failure
> > point. Think of it as a crash dump tool with extra controls
> Sure. I just don't see many end-users single-stepping through interrupt
> handlers etc.
> But yes, there probably are a few.
> But problems that tend to be hard to debug are things that don't happen
> all the time. Or require special timing to happen. And I don't think
> you'll find that those are very easy to attach to with a debugger either.
> So the guy at the debugger end has to be really good.
> Basically, I'd hate to depend on that.
Then why not allow more complex post-failure analysis tools into the
kernel as an option to debuggers? I agree that debugging should not
act as a crutch for poor design up front, but at the same time, once
you ship a product, you can't just ask the customer to "drop down into
the debugger and give me a stack trace". If the system doesn't save
the crash state for you, you might as well wave a magic wand over the
system or pray that someone can read an Oops report.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:28 EST