Andrew Overholt writes:
* Andrew Haley <aph(a)redhat.com> [2007-02-06 11:17]:
> Andrew Overholt writes:
> > * Mark Wielaard <mark(a)klomp.org> [2007-02-06 04:15]:
> > > more standards compliant (although I guess that doesn't help if your
> > > application isn't using xml in a compliant way).
> > Yeah, I also find it very hard to track down bugs that are deep within
> > Eclipse or in wacky ant scripts + custom ant tasks. Also, the lack of
> > debugging still sucks (yes, I know it's being worked on).
> Hey, I've been using the FC6 spin of gdb on Java code and it's great.
gdb isn't really a great solution for Eclipse plugins. It's doable,
yes, but a PITA.
OK; I've never tried. I'm not sure why an Eclipse plugin would be any
different from any other bit of Java code, but I'll take your word for
> Optimized code is a pain to debug, but non-optimized code works
> treat. There are still a few features I'd like to add, of course.
Are our RPMs non-optimized?
I hope not! :-)
If I need to debug an installed RPM for long enough that the weirdness
of debugging optimized code starts to get on my nerves, I'll recompile
the jarfile[s] in question: it's just "gcj -g -shared ... foo.jar -o