DDD or IDE? (was Re: Build Failure)

[Tom E. Turner]

I was wondering if anyone has successfully resolved  
build failures with the Data Display Debugger (DDD) 
or any IDE?

http://linux.cis.nctu.edu.tw/docs/ddd/#Summary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Data Display Debugger (DDD) is a popular graphical user 
interface for command-line debuggers such as GDB, DBX, JDB,
WDB, XDB, the Perl debugger, and the Python debugger. Besides 
``usual'' front-end features such as viewing source texts, 
DDD has become famous through its interactive graphical data 
display, where data structures are displayed as graphs. 
A simple mouse click dereferences pointers or views structure
contents, updated each time the program stops. Using DDD, 
you can reason about your application by watching its data, 
not just by viewing it execute lines of source code. 

Other DDD features include: debugging of programs written
in Ada, C, C++, Chill, Fortran, Java, Modula, Pascal, Perl,
and Python; machine-level debugging; hypertext source
navigation and lookup; breakpoint, watchpoint, backtrace, and
history editors; array plots; undo/redo; preferences and
settings editors; program execution in terminal emulator
window; debugging on remote host; on-line manual;
extensive help on the Motif user interface; command-line
interface with full editing, history, and completion
capabilities. 

DDD is generally regarded as one of the best debuggers
available. It is being used for software development by all
major suppliers of information technology and is actively
maintained by its co-author, Andreas Zeller at the Software
Technology Dept., Technische Universitdt Braunschweig,
Germany. 

Finally, DDD is free! DDD is open source software under the
GNU license. All we'd like you to do do is to write a picture
postcard. 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
   Envelope-to: tom@gnu.org
   X-Authentication-Warning: aztec.santafe.edu: rms set sender to rms@aztec 
using -f
   From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
   CC: gnu-emacs-bug@prep.ai.mit.edu
   Reply-to: rms@gnu.org
   Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org
   Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 15:47:33 -0600 (MDT)

       But the big question is, why when I use the default -O2 and don't 
specify 
       --without-x does it built just fine !?
       the optimisation error obviously only relates to stuff that's included 
for 
       emacs when there is no X support. any ideas?

   You can try compiling various files with different flags
   and determine which file is the locus of the problem.

   Then you can try splitting that file into two parts, compiling each
   part differently, and moving some things between the parts.
   then you can find which function is the locus of the problem.

   Then someone could study the erroneous assembler code made for that
   function and try to find the GCC bug.

   But before trying any of this, how about if you install the latest GCC
   release and see if it still fails.  There is no point in your spending
   time to debug a GCC bug that has been fixed already.


   _______________________________________________
   Bug-gnu-emacs mailing list
   Bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
   http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnu-emacs