Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow attaching (remote and local) with no program #262

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jonahgraham
Copy link
Contributor

There is no strict need to have a program passed to GDB when attaching (remote or local). Either the program can be downloaded from the remote or otherwise read by GDB, or if not possible then GDB can do symbol-free debugging.

Previously in #228 some work was done to better error when program was not specified. This change loosens the restrictions slightly. If the program is not specified, it is still a warning in VSCode because of
package.json

See this comment for how it is presented to a user: #261 (comment)

Part of #261

@jonahgraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

It looks like the new tests don't work on Windows, some additional work needed there.

There is no strict need to have a program passed to GDB when
attaching (remote or local). Either the program can be downloaded
from the remote or otherwise read by GDB, or if not possible
then GDB can do symbol-free debugging.

Previously in eclipse-cdt-cloud#228 some work was done to better error when
program was not specified. This change loosens the restrictions
slightly. If the program is not specified, it is still a warning
in VSCode because of
[package.json](https://github.com/eclipse-cdt-cloud/cdt-gdb-vscode/blob/22a9f1048f9030689ed1f5f2b3e5d5e48df9047d/package.json#L205-L207)

See this comment for how it is presented to a user:
eclipse-cdt-cloud#261 (comment)

Part of eclipse-cdt-cloud#261
@jonahgraham jonahgraham force-pushed the dontrequireprogramwhenattaching branch from ea8e74d to e3dd592 Compare April 21, 2023 18:43
@WyoTwT
Copy link
Contributor

WyoTwT commented Oct 26, 2023

This is a useful PR as I have a need for this functionality. Thank you

@jonahgraham
Copy link
Contributor Author

@WyoTwT if you can review this change and see if anything is missing, please let me know.

@WyoTwT
Copy link
Contributor

WyoTwT commented Oct 30, 2023

This PR looks good to me. Our tree has some minor differences but they're specific to our implementation.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants