6 ms·
Isn't lldb better option now? Commands are more structured. FWIW, gdb on OSX is a pain to setup, and attaching processes is broken.
by akshayaurora 12y ago
Isn't lldb better option now? Commands are more structured.
FWIW, gdb on OSX is a pain to setup, and attaching processes is broken.
- stormbrew 12y agoOn osx, perhaps. On Linux it's still a little rough. Or was last time I tried to use it. That said, I do look forward to using it more. But most importantly, I look forward to the tooling that can be built around it, since it's much easier to treat it as a library than gdb.
- willvarfar 12y agoI heard they recently bit the bullet and implemented GDB/MI so lldb can be used by all mainstream IDEs. This doesn't stop lldb-specific targets in IDEs, but it does make them less likely is my guess.
- tmm1 12y agoCopying `/usr/bin/gdb` and `/usr/libexec/gdb/gdb-i386-apple-darwin` from an OSX Lion installation is one way to get a functional gdb on Mountain Lion or Yosemite.
- netheril96 12y agoI tried LLDB on Ubuntu 12.04, only to find out that it has multiples bugs and no one cares. So no. My current standing is to use whichever compiler and debugger your platform comes default with: msvc/cdb for Windows, gcc/gdb for Linux and clang/lldb for OS X. Crossing them always reveals tons of bugs, at least for me.