RE: [ros-svn] [ion] 14799: KD System Rewrite:

[Ge van Geldorp]

>   From: ion(a)svn.reactos.com
>  
>  KD System Rewrite: 
This utterly broke the GDB stub, to the point that I can't even use DbgPrint
anymore to try and figure out what's wrong. May I suggest you go and read
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html first, revert this
patch (so I can get on with my work), and then, if you still feel this
overwhelming urge to rewrite, test all the functionality you're replacing
(you obviously didn't even consider a "/DEBUGPORT=GDB" and boot test
necessary) before recommiting.

If I sound a little bit pissed-off, that's because it's exactly how I feel.
This is not the first time I've been bitten by a rewrite. Back in January I
spent a lot of time improving symbol handling and profiling, only to see you
remove the profiling code a few weeks later, for a "new and improved"
rewrite. Only problem is, the "new and improved" profiling system doesn't
produce any output and is therefore useless. You said you would fix that in
a weeks time, but now, months later, still nothing. I'll be damned if I'm
going to let the same happen to the GDB stub, which I use on a daily basis.

We all break stuff sometimes (God knows I do) and I can live with that. I
can even live with rewrites when they're necessary for binary compatibility
(after all, that's what this project is all about) but I'm highly suspicious
of rewrites because of "well, uhmm, I think my way is cleaner".

Gé van Geldorp.

[Alex Ionescu]

Ge van Geldorp wrote:

> >  From:
> > ion(a)svn.reactos.com
> >
> > KD System Rewrite:
> >     
> >  
> This utterly broke the GDB stub, to the point that I can't even use DbgPrint
> anymore to try and figure out what's wrong. May I suggest you go and read
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html first, revert this
> patch (so I can get on with my work), and then, if you still feel this
> overwhelming urge to rewrite, test all the functionality you're replacing
> (you obviously didn't even consider a "/DEBUGPORT=GDB" and boot test
> necessary) before recommiting.
>
> If I sound a little bit pissed-off, that's because it's exactly how I feel.
> This is not the first time I've been bitten by a rewrite. Back in January I
> spent a lot of time improving symbol handling and profiling, only to see you
> remove the profiling code a few weeks later, for a "new and improved"
> rewrite. Only problem is, the "new and improved" profiling system doesn't
> produce any output and is therefore useless. You said you would fix that in
> a weeks time, but now, months later, still nothing. I'll be damned if I'm
> going to let the same happen to the GDB stub, which I use on a daily basis.
>
> We all break stuff sometimes (God knows I do) and I can live with that. I
> can even live with rewrites when they're necessary for binary compatibility
> (after all, that's what this project is all about) but I'm highly suspicious
> of rewrites because of "well, uhmm, I think my way is cleaner".
>
> Gé van Geldorp.
>
>   
>  
Hi,

I'd just like to add that in my humble opinion, adding 20 lines of code 
to support a new debugger is 100x better then adding 1000.
Imagine a complex debugging environment in ROS, where we support 
everything from re-assembling a function, disassembling, viewing the 
gdt, adding breakpoints, etc. Say we have 50 debugging functions. With 
the old system, each one would look like this:

if (KdDebuggerState & Foo)
  FooBreakPoint

if (KdDebuggerState & Foo1)
  Foo1BreakPoint

if (KdDebuggerState & Foo2)
  Foo2BreakPoint

if (KdDebuggerState & Foo3)
  Foo3BreakPoint

if (KdDebuggerState & Foo4)
  Foo4BreakPoint

if (KdDebuggerState & Foo5)
  Foo5BreakPoint

if (KdDebuggerState & Foo6)
  Foo6BreakPoint

....

if (KdDebuggerState & Foo10)
  Foo10BreakPoint

And this, for every single function. If you really think that's cleaner 
then parsing a list-entry and calling registered functions then 
err...ok, you're entitled to your opinion. So yeah "umm..my way is
cleaner".


I removed the profiling code for binary compatibility and I asked you if 
that was ok. I know I haven't had time to write a profiler client and 
I'm sorry.

I'll fix the GDB stub.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[Alex Ionescu]

Ge,

Please revert the rewrite if you can... I'm extremly sick and in the 
middle of a French, Physics, Math and Biology exam and have no time to 
even touch the code, as much as I want to, and I won't want to keep you 
waiting one more week.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[Ge van Geldorp]

>   From: Alex Ionescu
>  
>  Please revert the rewrite if you can... I'm extremly sick
>  and in the middle of a French, Physics, Math and Biology
>  exam and have no time to even touch the code, as much as
>  I want to, and I won't want to keep you waiting one more
>  week. 
I tried to revert, but unfortunately around 100 revisions have been made
since your original commit, so a plain merge didn't work anymore. After
fixing some of the merge failures, I still didn't have a workable GDB stub.

That means I might just as well try to fix things on HEAD. I've made some
progress there.

Gé van Geldorp.