2 ms·
Modern debuggers are complicated. There’re good reasons to name all of these components “a debugger”. But I think the symbolic engine deserves the name “debugge
by Const-me 5y ago
Modern debuggers are complicated. There’re good reasons to name all of these components “a debugger”. But I think the symbolic engine deserves the name “debugger” more than the GUI.
Note that in Windows, the GUI is the only piece missing from the default OS installation. The rest of the stack (DbgEng.dll, DbgHelp.dll, kernel calls, tracing, and more) is shipped with the OS.
> would you call gdbserver a debugger?
I’m not an expert on Linux. But based on this page https://www.tutorialspoint.com/unix_commands/gdbserver.htm https://www.tutorialspoint.com/unix_commands/gdbserver.htm probably not. I think it says that thing’s an IPC server which doesn’t do debugging on its own, doesn’t even need symbols, instead relies on the host to implement the actual debugger.