Re: [PATCH] Make running git under other debugger-like programs easy
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Apr 6, 2018, 10:38 UTC
- Message-ID
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1804061233330.55@ZVAVAG-6OXH6DA.rhebcr.pbec.zvpebfbsg.pbz>
- In-Reply-To
- <CABPp-BHhdxuV9a_4OfgaRu89Kx2039OLeS1vW-KdzpLxb-ZF3g@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Elijah,
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, Elijah Newren wrote:
Show 59 quoted lines
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > I wonder whether a better approach would be to add an optional argument to
> > that `debug` function (which is intended to have `git` as first argument,
> > anyway, or at least a command/function that does not start with a dash):
> >
> > debug_aux () {
> > shift
> > "$@" <&6 >&5 2>&7
> > }
> >
> > debug () {
> > case "$1" in
> > -d)
> > shift &&
> > GIT_TEST_GDB="$1" debug_aux "$@"
> > ;;
> > --debugger=*)
> > GIT_TEST_GDB="${1#*=}" debug_aux "$@"
> > ;;
> > *)
> > GIT_TEST_GDB=1 "$@" <&6 >&5 2>&7
> > ;;
> > esac
> > }
> >
> > ... and then in wrap-for-bin.sh, we would replace the last lines
> >
> > if test -n "$GIT_TEST_GDB"
> > then
> > unset GIT_TEST_GDB
> > exec gdb --args "${GIT_EXEC_PATH}/@@PROG@@" "$@"
> > else
> > exec "${GIT_EXEC_PATH}/@@PROG@@" "$@"
> > fi
> >
> > by
> >
> > case "$GIT_TEST_GDB" in
> > '')
> > exec "${GIT_EXEC_PATH}/@@PROG@@" "$@"
> > ;;
> > 1)
> > unset GIT_TEST_GDB
> > exec gdb --args "${GIT_EXEC_PATH}/@@PROG@@" "$@"
> > ;;
> > *)
> > GIT_TEST_GDB_$$="$GIT_TEST_GDB"
> > unset GIT_TEST_GDB
> > exec $GIT_TEST_GDB_$$ "${GIT_EXEC_PATH}/@@PROG@@" "$@"
> > ;;
> > esac
> >
> > or some such.
>
> That all looks great to me. But at this point, it seems like it's a
> full rewrite and your patch to submit (which I'd be happy to endorse
> in lieu of my own)...:-)
> or do you want me to submit with you as author and me as committer?
That would be my preference. I have not even tested what I wrote above...
> Also, a side question: if we go this route, do we want to rename > GIT_TEST_GDB to reflect its expanded usage?
Sure. Probably GIT_TEST_DEBUGGER? Or GIT_TEST_DBG? Or GIT_TEST_DEBUG?
Show 9 quoted lines
> > Then your magic "GIT_WRAPPER" invocation would become a bit more explicit: > > > > debug --debugger=nemiver git $ARGS > > debug -d "valgrind --tool=memcheck --track-origins=yes" git $ARGS > > No, for most (60-80%?) of my invocations, I wouldn't be able to use > the debug function; only a minority of my uses are from within the > testsuite. The rest are from the command line (I have > git/bin-wrappers/ in my $PATH),
Oy vey. bin-wrappers in your PATH? That's even worse than what I did in the first two years of developing Git: I always ran `git` in-place. However, I was bitten by a couple of bugs introduced while developing that made it hard to recover (if I don't have a functional Git, I cannot use it to go back to a working version, can I?). How do *you* deal with these things?
> so the above suggestions would mean that my invocation would become: > > GIT_TEST_GDB="nemiver" git $ARGS > GIT_TEST_GDB="valgrind --tool-memcheck --track-origins=yes" git $ARGS
Right.
Show 6 quoted lines
> > (In any case, "GIT_WRAPPER" is probably a name in want of being renamed.) > > Well, with your suggestion, it'd just be whatever that environment > variable is named. I'm perfectly happy with something other than > GIT_WRAPPER (or GIT_TEST_GDB). I'm not so good at coming up with such > myself, but maybe something like GIT_DEBUGGER or GIT_DEBUG_WITH?
I like both. Pick whatever you like, as long as it starts with `GIT_` and is descriptive enough. Even `GIT_LAUNCH_THROUGH` would work, but `GIT_DEBUGGER` seems to be the shortest that still makes sense.
Ciao, Dscho