Re: Finally the 2.2.0 is out of sight :-).
Marcin Dalecki (dalecki@cs.net.pl)
Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:34:00 +0100
"David S. Miller" wrote:
> Back to my original point, I believe most other architectures (at
> least Alpha and most x86's) wouldn't allow such an easy implementation
> as I have described due to having less functional firmware.
>
> One last point. Such schemes will never help us with the truly hairy
> bugs. The ones which are all about careful timing, such that calling
> any debug routine, or even trapping to some debugger breakpoint, would
> remove all of the evidence. This is a second reason why we should
> really encourage people to debug things the way we have always in the
> Linux kernel, by using the source and not being dependant on fancy
> debugging tools.
>
> Ok, I think I've made my religious position clear :-)
Religious or not one point you forget is the fact that there
are many other tools out there, which can be used for quality
assurance other then gdb... (mainly gcov and gprof are the ones
I'm aware of) However I agree with you up to some degree
with the point that too many easy used "fancy" debugging tools are
encouraging poor coding style and in esp. coding by try and error...
--Marcin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/