lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [git pull] x86 arch updates for v2.6.25
    Date
    On Wednesday 06 February 2008 04:08, Jan Kiszka wrote:
    > While too many people consider a debugger as _the_ tool for kernel
    > development, which it clearly isn't, it remains a fairly useful
    > feature, and I don't see any regression, technically or
    > organizationally, it may introduce to Linux. IMHO, it would be a pity
    > if kgdb have to remain out off tree and may potentially fall back at
    > quality levels that many of us had fought with in the past.

    I do pretty much all my debugging with printk, not just because it is a
    pain to go find a working kgdb patch, but also because tools like uml
    make printk style debugging really fast. That said, I often find my
    development time sinking away into tedious activity like putting in a
    printk after each line of code, just to find out where some bad thing
    started going bad. At that point a source level debugger would save me
    a bunch of time and I would not have to remove the printks afterwards.

    However, if the time required to patch the kernel with kgdb is more than
    the time spent putting in prinks then I will just grit my teeth and put
    in the printks. Never mind that I will end up going through the printk
    insertion process many times, while only needing to apply the kgdb
    patch once. Ahem, that is once per kernel version, and I change kernel
    versions like I change socks (that means "often" for the wags among
    you.)

    One thing I like to do with a source level debugger besides debugging is
    take a walk once through some new algorithm I have implemented. Not
    because I think there is a bug, but more for the same reason that I
    like to do a side by side walkthrough of new code with another
    developer before ever running it. This just provides a different
    perspective, so that perhaps some little blemishes, inefficiencies and
    redundancies will show themselves, and the code quality usually
    improves because of it.

    Not that this is the only way I review my own code, it is just another
    way. More ways of reviewing code are better. In this sense, the
    debugger is like a mechanical friend who always has time available to
    join in a side by side code review.

    Regards,

    Daniel


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-07 21:03    [W:0.024 / U:30.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site