7 ms·

GDB 7.11 released

80 points by lelf 11y ago

jjawssd 11y ago
How do I use this on OS X 10.11?
- dman 11y ago
  I dont develop much on osx anymore, but I suspect this will be available in homebrew at some point.
- fjarlq 11y ago
  You can build the gdb executable manually on OS X 10.11. First, run this if you haven't already installed the Command Line Tools for Xcode: xcode-select --install Then run these commands: curl -o gdb-7.11.tar.xz https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gdb/gdb-7.11.tar.xz tar zxf gdb-7.11.tar.xz cd gdb-7.11 ./configure make make install This should place the executable at /usr/local/bin/gdb. The final step is to codesign it. Instructions: http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/BuildingOnDarwin http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/BuildingOnDarwin
  - sysrpl 11y ago
    More on code signing gdb here: http://www.getlazarus.org/setup/macintosh/ http://www.getlazarus.org/setup/macintosh/
  - rurban 11y ago
    `tar xfJ gdb-7.11.tar.xz` for .xz files
    - fjarlq 11y ago
      Good point. GNU tar requires using the correct option, -J, when extracting an xz-compressed tarball. But OS X tar is bsdtar, which ignores -z and -J when extracting because it automatically recognizes compression and does the right thing. So it turns out both our suggestions happen to work on OS X.
      - fs111 11y ago
        nonsense, gnu tar unpacks anything with tar xf <file> just fine.
        fjarlq 11y ago
        Oh, good point, I wasn't aware that GNU tar also supported automatic compression recognition. I should have tested it. Thanks!
- microtherion 11y ago
  A related question is: does it make sense to use this on OS X? lldb is certainly better integrated with the system, does gdb really have benefits that make up for that?
- fancy_pantser 11y ago
  brew install gdb
TerryADavis 11y ago
At Ticketmaster, I learned the first thing you write when you start on bare metal is a debugger. I worked on VAX, 68000 and 8051 bare metal. The difference between an amateur operating system project and a professional one is writing a compiler.
- agumonkey 11y ago
  You still work for TicketMaster or was it long ago ?
  - vmorgulis 11y ago
    Take a look at Terry's project if you don't know it yet: http://www.templeos.org/ http://www.templeos.org/
    - agumonkey 11y ago
      I think most of us know who Terry is, but it's the first time I see him mentioning TicketMaster. That said, the website does mention 1990 for TM, so I got part of my question. Thanks.
      - vmorgulis 11y ago
        No offsense :-) Just read about TicketMaster on his site.
- vmorgulis 11y ago
  Forth and HolyC have both.
  - benaiah 11y ago
    You're replying to the guy that wrote HolyC.
    - vmorgulis 11y ago
blt 11y ago
OK, for someone who's written a lot of C++ in Visual Studio but is now developing on Linux: is it worth learning GDB? It seems like it'll always have some mental overhead compared to a visual debugger, but on the other hand I was never crazy about using an IDE...
- EliRivers 11y ago
  God God, yes. Five minutes is enough to learn how to get it going, add breakpoints, see the stack and interrogate variables. On a good day, you can fix a segFault faster than it would actually take you to spin up a visual debugger in an IDE or whatever. Sure, it's not the right tool for every job, but as a simple, easy to use, ubiquitous and quick debugger, you'd do yourself a favour spending the five minutes learning how to start using it.
- cheez 11y ago
  Learn cgdb instead.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  Use DDD instead. https://www.gnu.org/software/ddd/ https://www.gnu.org/software/ddd/
  - vmorgulis 11y ago
    Or Nemiver: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemiver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemiver
    - bubuga 11y ago
      Or KDbg for us KDE users: http://www.kdbg.org/ http://www.kdbg.org/
- Arkanosis 11y ago
  If you have a visual debugger, maybe not. But if you have complex bugs to track, the integration of Python in GDB alone is worth the hassle, I think.
throwaway27_35 11y ago
somewhat offtopic, but has anyone used lldb lately, when I last used it I found it much worse than gdb but I expect it will at somepoint surpass gdb (like the rest of LLVM has done to GNU (if you're on x86_64))

GDB 7.11 released

80 points by lelf 11y ago

jjawssd 11y ago

How do I use this on OS X 10.11?

dman 11y ago
I dont develop much on osx anymore, but I suspect this will be available in homebrew at some point.
fjarlq 11y ago
You can build the gdb executable manually on OS X 10.11. First, run this if you haven't already installed the Command Line Tools for Xcode: xcode-select --install Then run these commands: curl -o gdb-7.11.tar.xz https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gdb/gdb-7.11.tar.xz tar zxf gdb-7.11.tar.xz cd gdb-7.11 ./configure make make install This should place the executable at /usr/local/bin/gdb. The final step is to codesign it. Instructions: http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/BuildingOnDarwin http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/BuildingOnDarwin
- sysrpl 11y ago
  More on code signing gdb here: http://www.getlazarus.org/setup/macintosh/ http://www.getlazarus.org/setup/macintosh/
- rurban 11y ago
  `tar xfJ gdb-7.11.tar.xz` for .xz files
  - fjarlq 11y ago
    Good point. GNU tar requires using the correct option, -J, when extracting an xz-compressed tarball. But OS X tar is bsdtar, which ignores -z and -J when extracting because it automatically recognizes compression and does the right thing. So it turns out both our suggestions happen to work on OS X.
    - fs111 11y ago
      nonsense, gnu tar unpacks anything with tar xf <file> just fine.
      - fjarlq 11y ago
        Oh, good point, I wasn't aware that GNU tar also supported automatic compression recognition. I should have tested it. Thanks!
microtherion 11y ago
A related question is: does it make sense to use this on OS X? lldb is certainly better integrated with the system, does gdb really have benefits that make up for that?
fancy_pantser 11y ago
brew install gdb

TerryADavis 11y ago

At Ticketmaster, I learned the first thing you write when you start on bare metal is a debugger. I worked on VAX, 68000 and 8051 bare metal. The difference between an amateur operating system project and a professional one is writing a compiler.

agumonkey 11y ago
You still work for TicketMaster or was it long ago ?
- vmorgulis 11y ago
  Take a look at Terry's project if you don't know it yet: http://www.templeos.org/ http://www.templeos.org/
  - agumonkey 11y ago
    I think most of us know who Terry is, but it's the first time I see him mentioning TicketMaster. That said, the website does mention 1990 for TM, so I got part of my question. Thanks.
    - vmorgulis 11y ago
      No offsense :-) Just read about TicketMaster on his site.
vmorgulis 11y ago
Forth and HolyC have both.
- benaiah 11y ago
  You're replying to the guy that wrote HolyC.
  - vmorgulis 11y ago

blt 11y ago

OK, for someone who's written a lot of C++ in Visual Studio but is now developing on Linux: is it worth learning GDB? It seems like it'll always have some mental overhead compared to a visual debugger, but on the other hand I was never crazy about using an IDE...

EliRivers 11y ago
God God, yes. Five minutes is enough to learn how to get it going, add breakpoints, see the stack and interrogate variables. On a good day, you can fix a segFault faster than it would actually take you to spin up a visual debugger in an IDE or whatever. Sure, it's not the right tool for every job, but as a simple, easy to use, ubiquitous and quick debugger, you'd do yourself a favour spending the five minutes learning how to start using it.
cheez 11y ago
Learn cgdb instead.
pjmlp 11y ago
Use DDD instead. https://www.gnu.org/software/ddd/ https://www.gnu.org/software/ddd/
- vmorgulis 11y ago
  Or Nemiver: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemiver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemiver
  - bubuga 11y ago
    Or KDbg for us KDE users: http://www.kdbg.org/ http://www.kdbg.org/
Arkanosis 11y ago
If you have a visual debugger, maybe not. But if you have complex bugs to track, the integration of Python in GDB alone is worth the hassle, I think.

throwaway27_35 11y ago

somewhat offtopic, but has anyone used lldb lately, when I last used it I found it much worse than gdb but I expect it will at somepoint surpass gdb (like the rest of LLVM has done to GNU (if you're on x86_64))