On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Zach Welch <z...@superlucidity.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 10:25 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Zach Welch <z...@superlucidity.net> wrote: >> > On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 09:45 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote: >> >> > Hm - I'm with David here: I am not very fond of re-inventing parts of >> >> > gdb to include it in OpenOCD. >> >> > >> >> > Fully implementing this would make OpenOCD depend on libbfd just for >> >> > crash reports - this is ridiculous. >> >> >> >> If something like this was added, it should not create any >> >> dependencies or do anything remotely exotic. >> >> >> >> How about adding an option to statically link with GDB or create >> >> a script that launched OpenOCD via GDB as default? >> > >> > No one was talking about linking with GDB. That's just insane. ;) >> > libbfd is part of binutils. But again it should be_optional. >> >> OK. Explain the benefit of complicating OpenOCD vs. adding a script >> to launch OpenOCD via GDB then... > > Seriously... you've never had a Heisenbug either? Am I the only one > that gets segfaults and doesn't _want_ to have to debug them? Really?
Isn't running with core dumps enabled a far simpler method to catch those one-off crashes than keeping (and maintaining!) a bunch of code in-tree to do essentially the same, but less? It's less awkward than launching openocd within gdb, for sure. /Andreas _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
