Where the schedule of D development?

[Roald Ribe]

ElfQT wrote:
>> ..."Debugger, please."
> 
> Not even a debugger, only debugging info from the compiler.

Useless request unless specifying format I think. DWARF is
the only way to go for being able to use free/open debuggers.

> I've stated earlier how I miss good debugging support. (I don't even want to
> start on why unit testing, while it is great and powerful, isn't enough.)
> Even I've tried to support a D debugging/debugger project, until it came clear
> that the executables doesn't contain needed debug info (only source numbers and
> some basic stuff).
> And since the compiler is in Walter's hand, and backend is closed, there is no
> other way to include debug info, only if he works on it.

In DMD, not in GDC. I would guess (have not used D) that gdc produces DWARF,
I read a while ago that the D symbol name mangling caused trouble for gdb.
Don't know what the status is on that.

> I've never worked with compiler technology, and only scratched the surface with
> debugging information in debug executables, I wonder what it takes to be able to
> read/watch (all) D variables.

Producing debug info for the symbols.

> After that, to incorporate debugging into any tool/IDE seem a lesser problem to
> me.
> 
> Unfortunately, I've never heard Walter on this topic, is this task a hard one,
> or where the problem lies (I've heard codeview isn't a nice format, and the new
> MS "pdb" format is kind of MS internal), or is there a way to contribute to
> this..., is it planned after all ...
> only different deflective opinions form the D community.

pdb is not fully documented/known, and therefore useless outside MS tools.
codeview is known, but old an limited.

It may be that Walter is "saving" debugger support for a paid version of DMD.
Unless he comes out and tells otherwise, I assume at this point that if you
want debugger support in a free package, gdc is the way to go.

Roald