LLDB support - Re: DDT 0.9.0 released - GDB debugging integration

[Bruno Medeiros]

On 18/11/2013 20:51, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 18 November 2013 15:49, Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+dng at gmail.com
> <mailto:brunodomedeiros+dng at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 14/11/2013 17:54, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>
>         DDT 0.9.0 ("Debugging is Magic") is out, see post:
>         https://groups.google.com/d/__msg/ddt-ide/VwA7ifYt9c0/__wBcvUSVKNqMJ
>         <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ddt-ide/VwA7ifYt9c0/wBcvUSVKNqMJ>
>
>
>     BTW, the CDT devs are contemplating supporting LLDB as well:
>     https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/__show_bug.cgi?id=405670
>     <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=405670>
>     (primarily motivated by the poor support for GDB toolchain in Mac)
>
>     Nothing is decided or started yet, but it would be quite nice if
>     they went for it, as then LLDB support could be trivially added to
>     DDT as well. *fingers crossed*
>     Especially cool since the LDC compiler seems to be keeping up with
>     DMD and being up to date better than GDC (this is just my
>     impression, I haven't checked this claim)
>
>
> Check you claims. :o)
>
>
> The only discrepancy as of writing is that Martin's work on shared
> library support is incompatible with, and currently blocking the 2.064
> merge in GDC.
>
>
> --
> Iain Buclaw
>
> *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

That claim is based on the observation that the latest GDC binary 
distributable for Windows (which even so is not quite official and of 
unknown stability) is based on DMD 2.060 whereas LDC has binary releases 
based on 2.063.2 ...

Sure, the GDC development source maybe be more up to date to DMD, but:
a) I have no idea how stable that is. Are there even releases?
b) I find that the official GDC installation instructions for Windows 
(http://www.gdcproject.org/wiki/MinGW) are way overkill, much more 
hassle than should be required to install GDC.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer