From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id IAA14724; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 08:47:52 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA14179 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 08:47:52 +0200 (MET DST) X-SPAM-Warning: Sending machine is listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com Received: from athlon.baretta.com ([62.211.4.120]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9N6lo517797 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 08:47:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from baretta.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by athlon.baretta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F1AE27250; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 08:58:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3DB648A7.403@baretta.com> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 08:58:47 +0200 From: Alessandro Baretta Organization: Baretta srl -- www.baretta.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: it, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Hecker , Ocaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocamldebug and windows References: <20021021152135.E12164@pauillac.inria.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20021022083244.035ebfb8@mail.d6.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Chris Hecker wrote: > > Is all of this really worth it when compared to having a cross-platform > "normal" debugger, especially if that debugger architecture could work > on native code as well? In other words, it seems like we're giving up a > lot for this time-traveling feature. I've played with it a bit, and it > seems fine, but the fact that it's central to the debugger architecture > makes some other things harder (like porting it :). I think time travel is one of the bigger bonuses of working with O'Caml. I understand the need for a simple debugger that works in all situations, but time travel is something O'Caml cannot give up. I was also surprised that the debugger couldn't eval and link in > arbitrary ocaml code, especially since a) the debugger works only on > bytecode, and b) caml already has a toplevel. This surprises me, too. Often, I'd like to run functions manually when at a checkpoint, for the sake of printing complex data structures. I would be content to be able to invoke functions predefined in the executable being debugged. Alex ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners