On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, J. Dow wrote:
> > obpainintheass: haven't you anti-debugger-religion folks been claiming
> > that if you don't have a debugger you're forced to "think about the code
> > to find the correct fix"? so, like, why are you guessing right now? :)
> dean, that is another man behind the curtain we are supposed to ignore
> when our annoying little dog finds him.
And how, pray tell me, would debugger help? Seeing WTF was wrong took a
couple of minutes (looking at oops, looking into fs/buffer.c, checking the
structure layout in include/linux/fs.h). Dunno what was the sequence and
timing for Linus, but for me that was it. Just how in hell would somebody
do it faster/easier with debugger? Single-step the thing just in case?
Guess what, depending on the block size it would either do just fine or
crash immediately. Producing the same oops. Your point being?
Yeah, so I've looked at the typo evening before and didn't see it. Mea
culpa. Even ran the sucker before going down (on fs with 4Kb blocks, so no
problems happened). See the point? In that case debugger would be patently
useless. Care to provide better example? I can, BTW, but it's much more
convoluted and very rare. Furrfu...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 21:00:10 EST