|Smaller C Compiler email@example.com (2015-06-16)|
|Re: Smaller C Compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (Gene Wirchenko) (2015-06-19)|
|Re: Smaller C Compiler email@example.com (2015-06-20)|
|Date:||Sat, 20 Jun 2015 07:17:50 -0700 (PDT)|
|Posted-Date:||21 Jun 2015 12:25:47 EDT|
On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 9:30:47 AM UTC-7, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> >Self-hosing on and Cross-compiling for:
> I take it that it does not include a debugger. <BEG>
It's only self-hos(t)ing, not self-debugging. But there exist
decent/usable debuggers for DOS, Windows and Linux, which you
could use to debug it or programs compiled with it. The latter
might be a little hardcore since there's no symbol/debug info
in the executables produced by the compiler's linker. But map
files are generated by the linker and the compiler outputs
assembly code with annotations and so matching disassembly
in, say, gdb with the assembly code and ultimately with the
source code is quite feasible. I guess, yet another debugger
could only have value if it's either somehow better than the
existing ones (e.g. richer or better suites this compiler) or
is also very small, like the compiler itself. Does "<BEG>"
mean that you're begging for yet another one? If so, why?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.