hmm. neither db nor acid work for you? I've found acid to be much easier to use than gdb, but on my plan 9 projects a few prints are quicker for me than messing with a debugger.
unless harvey has added core dumps to plan 9, then post trap debugging would be via broken processes not core dumps.
why are you forced into core dump driven development. that makes it should like the environment isn't an effective on for development.
- erik
On Jul 26, 2015 10:54 AM, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Who claimed fast compilation was a motive?
> From what I understand this is all about being able to use gdb for debugging.
>
> It makes sense to me, but it might still be subjective.
> If you care I will explain my experience:
>
> Some longer time ago I tried gdb for disassembling some secret binary,
> but quickly gave up cause of the complex interface and reverted to
> objdump instead. I wasted a lot of time and that made me hate gdb a
> lot.
>
> Now, much later I started using gdb again, cause as long as it has
> access to the source analyzing coredumps is very easy. It's a better
> workflow than my printf() debugging, because the Makefiles of the
> project I'm working on are so complex and broken that everybody avoids
> compiling (takes too long).
> I have seen many complaints in Ron's commit logs about makefiles, too.
> I'm fairly certain that for Harvey and Akaros they're pretty much
> forced just like me into a coredump-driven development workflow.
>
> tldr: gcc is needed so that we can use gdb so that we don't have to
> compile as often so that we can fix bugs faster.
>
> On 7/26/15, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> > just speaking for myself, I found the fact that plan 9 was a self contained
> > thing to be a must have. i don't consider the gcc toolchain to be a
> > feature.
> >
> > if "fast compilation" is a feature over plan 9, I'd like to see some
> > numbers.
> >
> > - erik
> >
> > On Jul 25, 2015 3:15 PM, Axel Belinfante
> > <[?&cs=wh&v=b&to=axel.belinfante@utwente.nl]axel.belinfante@utwente.nl>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I couldn’t resist looking, and found
> >> in [http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.osnews.com%2Fcomments%2F28699&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGHKFWanYoFNYbSy6In7LAXtMi-tg]http://www.osnews.com/comments/28699
> >>
> >> "Harvey is an effort to get the Plan 9 code working with gcc and clang”.
> >>
> >> So, in a way it seems to be a port of Plan 9.
> >>
> >> More details, including the feature list below, are
> >> at [http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fharvey-os.org&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNErZ4XfGFvsgbhV-uqEiG8K2pSdYQ]http://harvey-os.org
> >>
> >> Features
> >>
> >> • AMD 64 bit
> >> • Modern, simplified syscall system
> >> • GCC toolchain means you can use gdb(!)
> >> • Compile in Linux or OSX using Harvey's headers and libs, no need to
> >> change anything else
> >> • Fast compilation of the whole system
> >> • All Plan9 userland apps available
> >> • Plans to add X11 with rio-like multiplexing, tty driver, new fileserver,
> >> native toolchain and more
> >>
> >> I’m intrigued by the “compile … using Harvey's headers and libs, no need
> >> to change anything else” —
> >> I guess that means that it will be easy to “port” stuff to Harvey?
> >>
> >> The team list contains names well-known on this list...
> >>
> >> I must say, it looks quite interesting, worth checking out.
> >>
> >> Axel.
> >>
> >>> On 25 Jul 2015, at 17:58, Ryan Gonzalez
> >>> <[?&cs=wh&v=b&to=rymg19@gmail.com]rymg19@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >> No clue. I'm guessing it's heavily inspired by Plan 9.
> >>
> >> On July 25, 2015 3:34:13 AM CDT,
> >> "[?&cs=wh&v=b&to=steve@quintile.net]steve@quintile.net"
> >> <[?&cs=wh&v=b&to=steve@quintile.net]steve@quintile.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> not sure what Harvey is... is it just plan9 ported to build on gcc?
> >>>
> >>> if so does gcc run under Harvey?
> >>>
> >>> does gcc run under plan9 now?
> >>>
> >>> Steve
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 25 Jul 2015, at 01:43, Ryan Gonzalez
> >>> <[?&cs=wh&v=b&to=rymg19@gmail.com]rymg19@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> [https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Fthis-is-not-a-monad-tutorial%2Fharvey-an-operating-system-with-plan-9-s-shadow-3081414e5f0b&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFKZSymwu8nNoZ6I7kp6PyVvp9A1g]https://medium.com/this-is-not-a-monad-tutorial/harvey-an-operating-system-with-plan-9-s-shadow-3081414e5f0b
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not affiliated with this whatsoever; I just saw it on Reddit and
> >>>> found it interesting.
> >>>>
> >>>> I found this part particularly neat:
> >>>>
> >>>> > We are working in ANSI POSIX environment to have most of well known
> >>>> > tools and programs that programmers or end users expects to have in a
> >>>> > modern operating system. Things that for traditional Plan 9 would be
> >>>> > very difficult to have.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Sent from my Nexus 5 with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from my Nexus 5 with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >>
> >
>
>