News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The LLDB Debugger by yan on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @02:36PM (#1414794)
Hopefully this replaces GDB, and good riddance.
Re:The LLDB Debugger by alec on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @04:15PM (#1415079)
GDB 7.1 is a great improvement over previous versions and has a lot of the features LLDB intends to have - better C++ support, better thread debugging, more accurate backtraces, and a Python scripting API - as well as some features that aren't on the LLDB roadmap yet, like tracepoints for debugging time-sensitive code and multi-program debugging. You should check it out if you're unhappy with an older version.
Re:The LLDB Debugger by wazoox on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @04:22PM (#1415102)
Hum, I'd rather wait and see first. What about the truckloads of tools built around gdb (ddd, etc)? And why this should be any better, because it comes from Apple?
Re:The LLDB Debugger by yan on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @05:54PM (#1415374)
This is my personal opinion, but the tools built around it either use the gdb protocol which I'm sure LLDB will be implemented to speak, or tools that I don't care about (like DDD you mentioned.. it was just a pain to use).

I don't really dislike gdb per se, and it worked well enough for the tasks I used it for, but I just have a personal distaste code conventions of gdb, gcc and other huge GNU projects. I tried spelunking around gdb source to get at some OS X-specific features and tried adding simple instrumentation to GIMPLE trees in gcc's implementation, and both experiences left me with a negative opinion of GNU coding conventions and showed both projects' age. Looking at LLVM source and following their mailing lists is anything but, showing clear direction and clean implementation. I'm not a compiler guy by any stretch of the imagination, but LLVM felt very well-architected and modern.

Apple sponsored LLVM after I started following it, so while it's true that they are behind it, it has very little to do with my respect for it.

Re:The LLDB Debugger by lallysingh on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @05:48PM (#1415356)
Apple employs a few (more than 1?) LLVM people, but it's hardly an Apple project by any means.

LLVM is a substantial and fantastic project. At the basis, it's a compiler backend in-a-box. Additional projects, like clang and this, are providing a modern compiler platform for us, finally. gcc & friends have made great advances, relative to other compilers, but they all do suck.

It's been 12 years and I still can't use C++ in a debugger without jumping through stupidity. It's literally easier to look at a type definition and read the memory out of a hex dump than go through 16 dropdowns of BS subtype definitions.

Re:The LLDB Debugger by resistor on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @07:06PM (#1415534)
> Apple employs a few (more than 1?) LLVM people, but it's hardly an Apple project by any means.

They employ around two dozen LLVM developers, comprising half to two-thirds of the regular committers.

Re:The LLDB Debugger by lallysingh on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @07:35PM (#1415601)
Oh wow.
Re:The LLDB Debugger by ramchip on Wednesday June 09, 2010 @12:08AM (#1416137)
I've found the Visual Studio debugger to be very nice, actually. It shows STL classes in an intelligible way, and the IDE integration is (as expected) excellent. Unfortunately OSS alternatives are still a lot less intuitive, and VS is stuck to Windows.
Re:The LLDB Debugger by lallysingh on Wednesday June 09, 2010 @10:35AM (#1417087)
I was actually talking about the VS debugger. If you get even a little fancy with templates & metaprogramming, the whole thing is just terrible.